Conference turris::womannotes-v5

    >Are gun clubs going to be prevented from providing storage for
    >members' weapons?

    Actually no. However the only handguns that they will have to provide
    storage for will be single shot .22 target pistols.  

    >I can't see any reason based on Hungerford or Dunblane for that.  

    Both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres were committed by people who
    were legally licensed to have guns.

    >I could see imposing beefed-up security regulations on gun
    >clubs, and preventing gun owners from removing their weapons from the
    >premises, 
    
    Could you give a 100% guarantee that such regulations would be totally
    enforced at all times? 

    >but what's to be achieved by a total ban?

    Well in the first place handguns are not needed in the UK. They are
    only used for recreational purposes. In the second place people seem to
    think that innocent people's lives are more important than the
    recreational pursuits of less than 0.002% of the population.               

    >No they're not. They are passing a law to ban handguns. It won't
    >effect the murder rate, just as previous laws have not.
     
    But Jim that is pure supposition on your part. There never has been a
    total hang gun ban passed in the UK, and as you are so fond of telling
    us, the UK is not like the USA. So I'm afraid that you will just have
    to wait and see. 

    Mind you if the murder rate in the UK drops I'll bet it will not get
    shouted from the roof tops by the NRA.

    So now perhaps you and Alan could tell us what steps you would take to
    try to stop a repeat of Hungerford and Dunblane?

    Jamie.   

    So now perhaps you and Alan could tell us what steps you would take to
    try to stop a repeat of Hungerford and Dunblane?

I don't know what steps will work.  But I'll bet that over the next ten years:

  o The number of people killed by illegally-held guns annually will not
    decrease
  o Someone will murder multiple people in one incident using a mechanism
    other than guns

I don't believe that this legislation will help, and I believe that it actively
steps on people's freedomms.  That's why I find this unpalatable legislation.

regards,
//alan

    So Alan has no constructive input to the problem. As long as it's other
    people's kids that are being slaughtered he is more concerned with a
    tiny minority's recreational freedom than the kid's lives.

    >o Someone will murder multiple people in one incident using a mechanism
    >other than guns
  
    An easy prediction. Next time someone puts a bomb on an aircraft, you
    will be right.

    Tell me Alan, how do you feel about your luggage being searched before
    you board a plane? Mind you as it is your life that is on the line I
    have no doubt you feel different about it.

    Jamie.
                                                              

Re:    <<< Note 591.724 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>
    
>    >I can't see any reason based on Hungerford or Dunblane for [banning
>    >shooting clubs from securely holding members' weapons].
>
>    Both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres were committed by people who
>    were legally licensed to have guns.
    
    Yes, but (obviously) not with guns that were secured at a target range.

>    >I could see imposing beefed-up security regulations on gun
>    >clubs, and preventing gun owners from removing their weapons from the
>    >premises, 
>    
>    Could you give a 100% guarantee that such regulations would be totally
>    enforced at all times? 
    
    Nobody can give a guarantee that a law will never be broken.  I suspect
    that if a law existed for which such a guarantee could be given, then
    the law wouldn't be necessary.
    
>    >but what's to be achieved by a total ban?
>
>    Well in the first place handguns are not needed in the UK. They are
>    only used for recreational purposes. In the second place people seem to
>    think that innocent people's lives are more important than the
>    recreational pursuits of less than 0.002% of the population.               
    
    I still don't see the argument for a total ban.  You have a strong
    argument that guns are not needed for self-defence in the UK.  So by
    all means prohibit keeping guns in the home (are the old exceptions for
    farmers to keep shotguns for vermin control still allowed?)
    
    But I don't see what harm guns locked up in shooting clubs will do
    (assuming there are hefty penalties for lax security).  From what you
    say, it sounds as though the UK legislation accepts this.
    
    John

    
    Ahem....no one is taking the test I posted in .716. I guess I will have
    to give everyone an incomplete.
    

   <<< Note 591.724 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>

>    Both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres were committed by people who
>    were legally licensed to have guns.

	But why not address the issue of why the law simply didn't require
	that the guns be kept at a licensed club? After all, it was the
	lack of such a restriction that allowed the possession of the
	guns used in Hungerford and Dunblane.

>    Could you give a 100% guarantee that such regulations would be totally
>    enforced at all times? 

	Do you require a 100% guaruntee for any other process?

>    But Jim that is pure supposition on your part.

	Yes, it is. But is a suppossition based on examination of the available
	data. No law passed in the UK (or in the US for that matter) restricting
	access to firearms has reduced the murder rate. There is currently no
	reason to believe that this law would somehow magically become the
	first to do so.

>    So now perhaps you and Alan could tell us what steps you would take to
>    try to stop a repeat of Hungerford and Dunblane?

	You can't. You can't make life completely safe. You can't protect
	yourself from every possible bad thisng that might happen. If some 
	nut wants to see his name in the papers, you can't stop him. 
	Regardless of how many laws you pass, he will still find a way. The 
	only good news is that you seem to have fewer of these fruitcakes 
	than we do.

Jim

    >Nobody can give a guarantee that a law will never be broken.  I suspect
    >that if a law existed for which such a guarantee could be given, then
    >the law wouldn't be necessary.
    
    Considering the weapons used in Hungerford and Dunblane were legally
    owned by the murderers the public faith in the rules being adhered to
    is very very low.

    >I still don't see the argument for a total ban.  You have a strong
    >argument that guns are not needed for self-defence in the UK.  So by
    >all means prohibit keeping guns in the home (are the old exceptions for
    >farmers to keep shotguns for vermin control still allowed?)

    Farmers are allowed shotguns, but not handguns.

    >But I don't see what harm guns locked up in shooting clubs will do
    >(assuming there are hefty penalties for lax security).  From what you
    >say, it sounds as though the UK legislation accepts this.
    
    One party wants all handguns removed. The ruling party wants to allow
    single shot .22 handguns, kept secure in gun clubs, to be allowed.

    All other multiple shot, semi automatic and automatic handguns are to
    be banned. 

    Should the opposition win the general election, due before mid May,
    they have threatened to include single shot handguns in the ban.
    Currently they are 20% ahead in the opinion polls.

    NB both Hungerford and Dunblane incidents multi-shot weapons were used.
    
    Jamie.

    So according to Jim and Alan we just leave things as they are and
    accept that every ten years or so a lunatic will go wild with a gun and
    kill lots of people.

    However Jim, would you care to itemize the actions taken by the
    Australian Government after the incident in Tasmania?

    Jamie.

   <<< Note 591.731 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>

>    So according to Jim and Alan we just leave things as they are and
>    accept that every ten years or so a lunatic will go wild with a gun and
>    kill lots of people.

	You can either accept the truth or ignore it. Your choice of course.
	But passing ever more ridiculous laws will not make you safe. That,
	unfortunately, is a fact.

Jim

    The assumption that some people seem to be stating here is that
    everyone who owns a firearm is a potential crazy who will go on a
    shooting spree at the slightest provocation, leave loaded guns in the
    reach of two-year-olds, and a host of other thingies that say to me
    gun owners are somehow not quite normal.  This has not been my
    experience in a country where around 40% of households have one or
    more firearms, and I live in a state where firearm ownership is
    significantly higher than average.  Both the murder and the violent
    crime rate have fallen here, certainly not what you would expect if all
    or even most gun owners were waiting for an opportunity to whip out
    their iron and shoot it out with anyone who crossed them.  
    
    None of the gun owners I know, including a few that note here, crouch
    in their heavily barricaded homes at night hoping that someone will
    attempt to break in.  Most are quite active in the community as well as
    in their families.  You wouldn't know any of us were "dreaded" firearm
    owners unless you knew us fairly well.  With the sometimes exception of
    an especially fine muzzle loader you will never see firearms or firearm
    paraphenalia on display(well except for the NRA decals on the cars)  
    
    We come in all flavors of politics, marital status, skin tones,
    religions, gender and orientation.  We shoot for pleasure, for food,
    and hope never to have to use anything more lethal than the barking
    dogs on another human.  
    
    meg
    in my home
    
    

RE: 591.714 - WRKSYS::MACKAY_E
>   Sure, they may not cut my head off, but I certainly consider emotional
>   and mental disturbances as harm.

I think you might have changed my mind. I now think, like you seem to
indicate you feel, as I read in your note, that people who upset you
or scare you should be summarily shot or at least have that treatment
be considered justifiable.

I find it incredibly paranoid seeming to assume that *anyone* who would
enter your home without permission might be more interested in the termination
of your life than making off with your television, jewelery, or money.
Sheesh. I think not.

RE: 591.708 - SALEM::DODA

> You may choose to believe that person breaking into your home 
> means you no ill will. I find it incredibly naive.

I do not think you understood my replies as I never stated what you are
asserting above. Perhaps you missed the word "may"... If I had asserted
that intruders mean no ill will, I think I might have advocated a plate of
cookies and glass of milk for the intruder rather than escape from the
house and situation in progress. 

On the other hand, I would suspect they would be more interested in my
possessions and things they might turn into cash than in me personally.
I am not so arrogantly self-important to assume that I would be the object
and reason for any intruder to my home.

I did NOT suggest a lack of "ill will" as stealing my property is indeed
"ill will". I DID suggest that they may well be uninterested in shooting
you. I think there might be lots of better ways to shoot a person than
breaking into their home at night and thumping around to wake them. I 
guess those intruders who do that must be real good sporting souls since
they must really want an even confrontation when they come into your
home to kill you and your family. 

How nice. Better hope that word doesn't get around that you're an 
easy mark. They may make a return appearance once they realize 
that your response to their intrusion is to run the other way.

daryll

     <<< Note 591.734 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>


>I find it incredibly paranoid seeming to assume that *anyone* who would
>enter your home without permission might be more interested in the termination
>of your life than making off with your television, jewelery, or money.
>Sheesh. I think not.

	If their interest was only in your possessions, then they would
	wait until no on is home. By entering an occupied dwelling, they
	have already decided that they are willing to accept a confrontation.

	When Colorado passed the law allowing the use of deadly force
	against intruders, home breakins dropped by 50%. I consider this
	a "good" thing. Your milage may vary.

Jim

   <<< Note 591.735 by SALEM::DODA "Life's a meeting. Get on the agenda!" >>>

>How nice. Better hope that word doesn't get around that you're an 
>easy mark. 

	Given the deep conviction, maybe Stepanie is will to put
	a large sign on her front lawn, "No firearms or other defensive
	weapons in this house".

	What do you think?

Jim

    >You can either accept the truth or ignore it. Your choice of course.
    >But passing ever more ridiculous laws will not make you safe. That,
    >unfortunately, is a fact.
        
    Rubbish. That is an opinion with no facts to back it up.
    
    Jamie.

RE: 591.735 GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>	Given the deep conviction, maybe Stepanie is will to put
>	a large sign on her front lawn, "No firearms or other defensive
>	weapons in this house".

Well, Jm, I believe you are using the misdirection and obscuring tactics
you so readily accused me of in the above statement which, along with those
of others here, lead people to believe that I think that *noone* who breaks
into a home has an intention of killing or shooting the occupants. That is
clearly false and I've never made that assertion here.

I find the assumption by yourself that you will use deadly force in a 
preemptive strike on anyone entering your without your permission an
appalling situation. I believe it speaks volumes about your valuing life
of other people. You have also expressed no regard to whether the intruder
is armed or if there may be other options like, as I suggested, escape
and calling the police from a safe location. Just shoot, shoot, shoot.

When I suggest a plausable scenerion, the intruder sneaking into your
home undetected, you for the first time, bring up that you have dogs that
guard your home, changing the scenerio to a large degree. 

I have found this sort of "we're losing the argument, let's change the 
groundrules" approach less than productive. I hope you never have teenage
children who might come home in the night after you have gone to sleep.
I would hate to hear of one of them getting a bullet in their head, even
if it was "within the law."...

	-Stephanie

   <<< Note 591.738 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>

>    Rubbish. That is an opinion with no facts to back it up.
 
	No gun law yet passed has resulted in less crime. That is a fact.
	Ignore it if you will, others may choose to keep an open mind.

Jim

    Stephanie,
    
    In a long research paper regarding the habits of convicted burglars, it
    was state the vast majority avoid entering a house when people are
    present, because their may be an armed and hostile property owner
    within.  It is my opinion that those that do could care less about the
    risks or the homeowner, and are likely to do me harm, given the chance.  
    
    meg

     <<< Note 591.739 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>Well, Jm, I believe you are using the misdirection and obscuring tactics
>you so readily accused me of in the above statement which, along with those
>of others here, lead people to believe that I think that *noone* who breaks
>into a home has an intention of killing or shooting the occupants. That is
>clearly false and I've never made that assertion here.

	And I never accused you of making it. My accusation is that you
	would NOT use deadly force against an intruder, regardless of
	his intentions. I've seen nothing in your posts that would 
	suggest otherwise.

>I find the assumption by yourself that you will use deadly force in a 
>preemptive strike on anyone entering your without your permission an
>appalling situation.

	As I said, this is not a game. Second place means death or injury.
	I will not give up a tactical advantage by warning the intruder.

> I believe it speaks volumes about your valuing life
>of other people. You have also expressed no regard to whether the intruder
>is armed or if there may be other options like, as I suggested, escape
>and calling the police from a safe location. Just shoot, shoot, shoot.

	Now you are making the unsubstantiated accusation. I said that
	I will shoot without warning. That does not mean that I have
	not already dialed 911. But I will not run. I do not have to.

>When I suggest a plausable scenerion, the intruder sneaking into your
>home undetected, you for the first time, bring up that you have dogs that
>guard your home, changing the scenerio to a large degree. 

	I am sure that I have mentioned "the guys" in this file before.
	I did make an, apparently poor, assumption regarding the scenario.
	My fault, trying to post a short and simple reply to a complex
	situation.	

	The details: (all planned and discussed ahead of time)

	If there is an intruder, our first alert will likely be the dogs. 
	Kat will dial 911 making absolutely sure that she informs them that
	we are armed. I will move to investigate armed with my pistol, Kat
	will remain in the bedroom and on the phone armed with her revolver.
	I will not attempt to re-enter the bedroom. I will "clear" the first
	floor. Given the layout of the house this can be done safely. I will
	not attempt to clear the basement since it can not be done safely
	by one person. I'll wait for the cops to do that. Once the first
	floor is clear (I'm assuming that the intruder will leave when they
	hear the dogs) I'll get on the kitchen extension and inform both Kat 
	and the dispatcher of the situation. When the cops arrive, I will
	"safe" my pistol, removing the magazine and locking the slide back
	(this makes the cops feel better). I will let them clear the basement.

	Now, if at any time I see an intruder before the cops have arrived,
	the first warning they get is the muzzle flash.

>I hope you never have teenage
>children who might come home in the night after you have gone to sleep.

	My daughter is out on her own now, but when she was still living
	in the house, she had her own pistol and the change in the scenario
	was that I would warn her over the intercom and she would stay in
	her room. BTW, she never came home after I went to sleep (that
	did mean some late nights for me on occasion, but her weekend
	curfew was midnight, weeknights was 10:00PM so it wasn't too bad).

Jim

    This is all rather frightening. You are prepared to take a life, and you
    have prepared a member of the next generation to take a life, with no
    questions asked, in order to protect your posessions.
    
    You even have the scenerio all prepared on how it will
    play out. The bad guy will be alone, no one will be hiding behind the
    door to the basement-- no one will be ready to take your life at any
    cost-- you will be faster and more precise with your shot...
    
    If you and your loved ones leave you won't have to face these terrible
    possibilities. I agree.. when faced with force, defend with equal or
    greater force to end the conflict, but avoid it first if you can...
    
    Jan

    re:743
    
    I don't see how you can say this:
    
    "in order to protect your posessions."
    
    Jim has clearly stated that his response was developed under the
    belief that an intruder, who enters a home with his family in
    residence, has a high degree of likelyhood of intent to harm.
    
    I definitely belive Jim's intention is to protect himself and his
    family.
    

         <<< Note 591.743 by ABACUS::DELBALSO "she'll make her way" >>>

>    This is all rather frightening. You are prepared to take a life, and you
>    have prepared a member of the next generation to take a life, with no
>    questions asked, in order to protect your posessions.
 
	Not to protect possessions, if they can get out the door with the
	TV, I won't chase them. But, as long as they are in my home, they
	represent a threat, a threat that I will deal with.

>    You even have the scenerio all prepared on how it will
>    play out.

	Yes. Preparation is for our safety. I don't want Kat to shoot me
	(that's why I will not re-enter the bedroom). I don't want to shoot
	her (that's why she will stay in the bedroom). Planning and 
	preparation eliminate the chance for making the worng decisions
	under stress.

> The bad guy will be alone,

	No guaruntee that he will be alone, but I can safely deal with
	multiple intruders on the first floor.

> no one will be hiding behind the
>    door to the basement-- 

	No guaruntee here either (although there is no door) and I can not
	safely deal with even one intruder downstairs since there are three
	rooms and a hallway at the bottom of the stairs. Since Kat and I
	are upstairs, and only possessions are downstairs (we should note
	that this is a fully finished walkout) I'll simply stay upstairs.

>no one will be ready to take your life at any
>    cost--

	In my house, when I and/or Kat are home, they represent a threat.

> you will be faster and more precise with your shot...
 
	I will indeed.

>    If you and your loved ones leave you won't have to face these terrible
>    possibilities. I agree.. when faced with force, defend with equal or
>    greater force to end the conflict, but avoid it first if you can...
 
	Sorry, this goes back to the original posting. I will NOT wait for
	the intruder to get off the first shot, I will NOT go looking for
	a knife if he comes at me with a knife, I will NOT go "hand to hand"
	if he approaches me with nothing more than a clenched fist. I will
	SHOOT him, period.

Jim

    Jan,
    
    You really are missing the point.  I could care less about the TV, but
    I have two precious children living in my home, as well as myself and
    my husband.  They are important enough to wish to defend with whatever
    means required.  Yes I know my kids, yes I know the dog, yes I know my
    husband, and who is supposed to be in the house each night.  
    
    No, I won't give an intruder a second chance unless their tail-end is
    on its way out the door and then most likely the dog will interfere
    with a shot, and I have no desire to hurt her either.  The thing is, I
    have been helpless to defend myself in the past, I was fortunate to get
    off with only a few bruises and some vaginal abrasions and lacerations,
    as well as a lasting feeling of loss of control of my destiny that took
    some time to recover from, and the fear for two weeks of the
    possibility of an STD or pregnancy.  (this was pre-aids, a friend I
    know who was attacked a couple of years back had HIV tests for the next
    two years and herpes, the gift that keeps on giving)  
    
    There is no way I would subject an 11-year-old or a three-year-old to
    that kind of thing.  IMNSHO and in the penitentiary studies, someone
    who is merely after my things will avoid coming into a clearly occupied
    house.  The risk is too great that they will run into a person who
    believes what Jim and I do, and they prefer to work without that sort
    of interference.  
    
    meg

    Now let us look at some of the stuff you have been writing of late,
    Jim.

    First you asked for the UK statistics as you seemed sure that they were
    not as rosy as we were telling you.

    When I got them for you they really did highlight the massive
    difference in the murder rate between the two countries.

    Your then tried a diversion by misusing the England and Wales statistics
    to prove that there was a minute increase in the last few years.

    For some totally unknown reason you assumed that you could extrapolate
    that into the future.

    Then you tried the scare tactic, "Doing nothing and burying our heads
    in the sand"

    When I pointed out that they were actually working urgently on the
    problem, you said that facts proved it different.

    OK could you provide the evidence that a total handgun ban in the UK
    does not reduce the murder rate? No, you can't. You are just assuming
    that when this happened in the USA and some gun control laws, usually
    watered down by the NRA, were passed they were not stringent enough to
    be effective.

    Well that is not going to happen in the UK.

    Finally I asked you what your solution was, and it appears to be, do
    nothing and just let the murder rate rise until it is as bad as the
    USA. Who is hiding his head in the sand?

    You seem to do a good line on bluster, scare, diversion, but very
    little on addressing the real issue.

    Jamie.

    Jamie,
    
    As early as 1960 Washington DC had what amounted to a total handgun
    ban.  New York city was a bit further behind.  What the results were
    were higher crime rates, including but not limited to muggings, rapes,
    robberies and murders.  One thing some of us have learned is that
    making the godd guys less able to defend themselves allows the criminal
    mindset more freedom to victimize law-abiding citizens.  
    
    Colorado has very loose restrictions on carrying, but fairly strict on
    carry concelaed, although they have been loosening up.  the crime rate
    has been steadily dropping among all groups, including inner-city
    youth since LCC restrictions have been loosening.  Now with
    restrcitions loosening, one would think that all of the
    gun-toting-truck-drivin-liberals would be turning my town into a
    replica of Dodge City.  It just isn't happening that way.  Yep we have
    had some pretty gruesome murders in the last week.  Two were small
    children whose caretakers bounced their heads off hard objects after
    shaking them, one was a woman beaten to death after surprising robbers
    in her home, and three were killed in a suspicious motel fire last
    night in thornnton.  Oh and another appears to have been strangled by
    another person looking for money.  
    
    meg 

    Fair enough meg. They were highly localised bans and easily
    circumvented. The situation in the UK is quite different.

    The UK is a collection of islands, they are more isolated. The handgun
    ban will be covering the complete country. There is no way you can nip
    across a state line, pick up a gun and nip back.

    As such I cannot see any justification for saying that the same will
    happen in the UK as the USA. The people do not think the same way.

    Jamie.

    
    Meg .746
    
    	Read what I wrote again--- My point is-- face the situation if you
    must-- with any tool at hand. If they come at you with their hands--
    get the gun if you can, with a knife... get your gun... end the
    conflict, finish it
    	
    	However...
    
    		If you can avoid the conflict-- do
    
    
    Most of us have had our sense of safety shattered somewhere along the
    line-- it doesn't have to change you into a different person, just a
    prepared person. The gent who had his "patrol plan" of the house
    sounded like he was hunting the intruder with the single purpose of
    ending his/her life. His attitude scares me....
    
    Jan

   <<< Note 591.747 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>

>    First you asked for the UK statistics as you seemed sure that they were
>    not as rosy as we were telling you.

	I asked for the statistics because I did not have them. I knew only
	what I had read/been told about what they showed.

>    When I got them for you they really did highlight the massive
>    difference in the murder rate between the two countries.

	There was never any doubt that this was the case. The murder rates
	between the US and the UK have been dramatically different for as
	long as either of us is able to get data.

	That was NOT the issue. The question was with all of the ever 
	increasingly draconian laws in the UK was the rate improving.
	The stats tell us that it is not, in fact it is worse now than
	it has ever been.

>    Your then tried a diversion by misusing the England and Wales statistics
>    to prove that there was a minute increase in the last few years.

	The number of murders increase by a small number, true. But since
	murder is such a rare event in the UK the percentage increase was
	far from minute. 

>    For some totally unknown reason you assumed that you could extrapolate
>    that into the future.

	That's how social trending is done Jamie. After all, you are touting
	the new law as the absolute panacea by exptrapolating Hungerford/
	Dunblane style massacres unless it is passed. Same process.

>    Then you tried the scare tactic, "Doing nothing and burying our heads
>    in the sand"

	You are burying your heads if you think that the law will reduce
	your murder rate. They have not had this effect and there is no
	data to make a rational person believe that they will in the future.
>    When I pointed out that they were actually working urgently on the
>    problem, you said that facts proved it different.

	The facts are that with all of the controls that were already in place, 
	and all of the laws passed after Hungerford, the murder rate did not
	go down, it went up. At the same time, the illegal use of firearms
	in crimes other than murder has skyrocketed even as ownership of
	firearms has plummeted. The only thing the new laws have accomplished
	is to reduce the number of gun owners.

>    OK could you provide the evidence that a total handgun ban in the UK
>    does not reduce the murder rate? No, you can't. 

	No more than you can provide evidence that it will. Since all of the
	available data says that no law passed so far has reduced the murder
	rate, I feel a great deal more comfortable with my position than you
	should be with yours.

	You WANT to believe that this is the answer. But wanting something
	and getting it are two different things. The available data indicates
	that you will be dissappointed. And all your new law will accomplish
	is what the old ones did, reduce the number od gun owners. So, if this
	is REALLY the goal, then at least be honest about it. If you hate or
	fear firearms, fine. Just be upfront about what you are really after.
	And stop parading the dead children around as your jsutification.

>    Well that is not going to happen in the UK.

	Time will tell. As I said right from the very begining, pass your laws.
	And then when this one fails, as all the others have, I will be able
	to point to the UK when our politicians try the same stunt.

>    Finally I asked you what your solution was, and it appears to be, do
>    nothing and just let the murder rate rise until it is as bad as the
>    USA. Who is hiding his head in the sand?

	At least try to be honest about what you asked, and what I wrote.
	You asked what I would suggest to prevent another Dunblane. I told
	you that there was nothing you could do, no law that you could pass
	that would gauruntee that no such tragedy would occur in the future.
	That is true. You can not pass laws that absoultely protect yourselves
	from madmen. Life just doesn't work that way.

>    You seem to do a good line on bluster, scare, diversion, but very
>    little on addressing the real issue.

	Only I have been looking at the stats in a dispassionate manner,
	you have had to result to distortions, obsfucation, and, outright
	lies in order to support your untenable position. I will let others
	decide who is REALLY addressing the issue.

Jim

   <<< Note 591.749 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "Like to help me avoid an ulcer?" >>>

>    The UK is a collection of islands, they are more isolated. The handgun
>    ban will be covering the complete country. There is no way you can nip
>    across a state line, pick up a gun and nip back.

	There must be no problem with illegal drug use in the UK then,
	right?

>    As such I cannot see any justification for saying that the same will
>    happen in the UK as the USA. The people do not think the same way.

	While residents of the UK are much less violent than those is the US,
	the increasing use of firearms in crime even though LEGAL firearms
	ownership has been cut in half, does indicate that the criminal
	element in the UK is taking much the same approach as those in 
	D.C. or NYC.

Jim

         <<< Note 591.750 by ABACUS::DELBALSO "she'll make her way" >>>

>The gent who had his "patrol plan" of the house
>    sounded like he was hunting the intruder with the single purpose of
>    ending his/her life. His attitude scares me....
 
	Then you really didn't read what I wrote. I will stop the threat.
	I will do it with the least possible personal exposure to injury
	to myself or my wife. We are prepared for the very unlikely event
	that somone may break into our home. AND my intent is not to kill
	the intruder, it is to STOP them. They may die as that is the 
	possibility when I use deadly force, but I will call for an
	ambulance, I will even use my training in first aid to keep
	them alive. I have no desire to kill another person. But I will
	not allow them to threaten me or my family.

Jim

    So Alan has no constructive input to the problem. As long as it's other
    people's kids that are being slaughtered he is more concerned with a
    tiny minority's recreational freedom than the kid's lives.

That comment is beneath you, Jamie.  Since I don't have any kids are you
trying to tell me that my view must therefore be irrelevant?  Maybe you were
just having a bad Friday.

    Tell me Alan, how do you feel about your luggage being searched before
    you board a plane? Mind you as it is your life that is on the line I
    have no doubt you feel different about it.

Remember that in Hungerford Ryan deliberately only shot at adults.  So your
contention that I'm in no danger whatsoever is absolute twaddle.  But I
believe that I am in much more danger from many many other causes than from
legally-held guns.

I feel that everyone in the country is in much more danger from other causes
than from legally held guns.

And I'm not convinced that just tramping on some minority's rights is a good
response.  Remember that this comes from someone who has never fired a firearm
in his life, but is just not convinced that this is a good legal precedent to
set.

regards,
//alan

    
    re: 591.749
    
    >    Fair enough meg. They were highly localised bans and easily
    > circumvented. The situation in the UK is quite different.

    > The UK is a collection of islands, they are more isolated. The handgun
    > ban will be covering the complete country. There is no way you can nip
    > across a state line, pick up a gun and nip back.
    
    Jamie, since 1968, in the U.S., it has been a Federal felony to purchase,
    sell, or otherwise transfer a handgun outside one's own state of 
    residence.  Long guns may only be purchased outside one's own state if 
    that state shares a contiguous border _AND_ both states have passed 
    enabling legislation, and then only if the purchase is made through
    a licensed dealer (no private party cross-state sales are allowed,
    period.)
    
    It is a pernicious myth, put forth by lying hoplophobes - and their
    ignorant dupes - that the restrictive New York and D.C. gun laws are 
    being circumvented by *legal* purchases outside their boundaries.  
    It just isn't so.
    

    Don't worry, Jamie, not everyone in the U.S. is a gun freak. 
    Statistics indicate that gun owners are a loud minority, and membership
    in the NRA is shrinking as its well-deserved reputation for fanaticism
    increases.  Far more Americans favor stricter gun control than
    oppose, but simply aren't as loud and irrational about it.
    
    Also, statistically, households in which there are one or more handguns
    are four times more likely to experience a gun-related fatality - most
    likely at the hands of another family member or intimate.
    
    I'm always amused at the "Don't keep your head in the sand" attitude of
    gun proponents who simply refuse to see that limitations on the
    availability of the primary tool of the trade, will restrict the 
    frequency of the incidence of murder.  If we banned chain saws, there'd
    be a whole lot less trees cut down...but guns?  Guns don't kill people.
    
    Bullets do.
    
    tim
    

    Tim,
    
    Removing guns doesn't do much to deter a murderer.  People use fists,
    feet, masonry hammers, take a peek at the murder trials going on in the
    UK right now.  We have 4 horrible child murder cases going on right now
    in Colorado.  A garrot, a wooden spoon, and blunt objects were used,
    not guns.  Now admitedly the number of gun murders might drop off,
    although there is such a huge number of weapons available in the world,
    I seriously doubt that a ban and instantaneous removal of all guns in
    public and private hands would make a dent in those determined to use a
    firearm as a murder weapon.  
    
    Realistically the only way top reduce murders is to reduce the
    glorification of violence in solving problems, teach people that my way
    or the highway is not always a good way to negotiate, and work on
    teaching chilren non-violent means of confrontation and managing anger.  
    
    Bullets don't kill people, I could heave one at you and unless you were
    very unlucky and I had really good aim, you wouldn't even be injured.  
    
    meg

      <<< Note 591.756 by LASSIE::UCXAXP::GRADY "Squash that bug! (tm)" >>>

>Far more Americans favor stricter gun control than
>    oppose, but simply aren't as loud and irrational about it.
 
	Interesting, then, that the trend is moving toward less restrictive
	laws (ie. concealed carry), wouldn't you say?

>    Also, statistically, households in which there are one or more handguns
>    are four times more likely to experience a gun-related fatality - most
>    likely at the hands of another family member or intimate.
 
	Source?

>    I'm always amused at the "Don't keep your head in the sand" attitude of
>    gun proponents who simply refuse to see that limitations on the
>    availability of the primary tool of the trade, will restrict the 
>    frequency of the incidence of murder.

	Washington D.C has had a totoal ban on handguns since 1986, and
	has restricted the availibility of all long guns since that time.

	In the last ten years, the murder rate in D.C increased roughly
	500%. Kind of hard to make a case that "limitations on the
	availability of the primary tool of the trade, will restrict the
	frequency of the incidence of murder".

Jim

I find .757 makes an interesting contrast with the other...

	-Stephanie

RE: 591.757 - CSC32::M_EVANS    

>   Realistically the only way top reduce murders is to reduce the
>   glorification of violence in solving problems...

RE: 591.746 - CSC32::M_EVANS

>   No, I won't give an intruder a second chance unless their tail-end is
>   on its way out the door and then most likely the dog will interfere
>   with a shot...

RE: 591.156 - CSC32::M_EVANS

>   Well this woman is a firm believer in gun control, as long as it means
>   being able to hit one's target on the first shot.  

RE: 591.057 - CSC32::M_EVANS

>   Shoot a large enough caliber you will never be complacent.  big guns
>   talk to you in a way that gets and holds your attention forever more.  

RE: 591.340 - CSC32::M_EVANS    

>   I personally don't own a handgun, at this time being more fond of my
>   DEWS (Sonja) and the sight of a shotgun for ultimate intimidation.

RE: 591.746 - CSC32::M_EVANS

>   ...in a country where around 40% of households have one or more
>   firearms, and I live in a state where firearm ownership is
>   significantly higher than average.

    Stephanie,
    
    i fail to see the dichotomy.  
    
    I do believe in non-violence whenever possible.  Defending me and mine
    is not one of those times.  Would it surprise you to know that most
    homeowners who own firearms and have confronted a burglar never need to
    fire their weapon?   I will not willigly give up my life or my
    childrens lives in attempting to live nonviolently when someone makes
    violent intentions clear.  Coming unannouned into an occupied house
    when not invited is saying you are willing to commit violence.
    
    Also in my gun toting state, murders are down, even with loosened carry
    concealed permits, an extremely high number of legitimate gun owners,
    and an imported gang problem.  

    An interesting document has just been published by the CDC in Atlanta
    that claims the U.S.A. has highest rate of child murders.

    I will quote the interesting parts.

    Children in the United States are five times as likely to be murdered
    and 12 times as likely to die because of a firearm than those in other
    industrialized countries.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the United
    States had the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide and
    firearm-related deaths of 26 countries studied. 

    "Homicide rates are five times higher in the United States, suicide
    rates are double and firearm death rates are 12 times higher" than in
    the other countries, CDC medical epidemiologist Dr. Etienne Krug said. 

    The firearm-related homicide rate was 0.94 per 100,000 children, almost
    16 times higher than the other countries' average of 0.06 per 100,000. 

    In 1994 homicide was the third-leading cause of death for U.S. children
    aged 5 to 14 and fourth-leading cause for children 1 to 4. The CDC
    compared childhood death statistics with figures from 25 other
    countries that had similar economies and a population of at least one
    million. 

    There were 2.57 murders per 100,000 children between 1990 and 1995, the
    CDC said. The figure was five times the rate of 0.51 per 100,000 in the
    other countries. 

    There were 1.66 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 children during the
    same period, including murders, suicides and accidents -- 12 times
    higher than the average of the other countries studied. 

    In all of the countries studied, males accounted for two-thirds of
    firearm-related homicides, three-fourths of firearm-related suicides
    and 89 percent of accidental firearm-related deaths. Five countries --
    Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland and Taiwan -- reported no
    intentional firearm-related deaths among children younger than 15. 
    
    The above figures are pre Dunblane.
                                                             
    There were also references citing studies that a handgun in the home
    was 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the household or
    a friend rather than in self-defense. 

    Jamie.
 

   <<< Note 591.761 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "I feel all feak and weeble, doc" >>>

>    An interesting document has just been published by the CDC in Atlanta
>    that claims the U.S.A. has highest rate of child murders.

	The number seem to closely mirror the overall differences in murder
	rates, it would be odd if they did not.

>    The firearm-related homicide rate was 0.94 per 100,000 children, almost
>    16 times higher than the other countries' average of 0.06 per 100,000. 

>    There were 2.57 murders per 100,000 children between 1990 and 1995, the
>    CDC said.

	This IS different from the average, indicating that firearms are
	not the weapon of choice in child murders.

>    There were also references citing studies that a handgun in the home
>    was 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the household or
>    a friend rather than in self-defense. 

	Ah Jamie, still finding a need to bend the truth I see. The "reference"
	was a quote from Sarah Brady (not the CDC) and now even she is lying.

	THe "study" she is misquoting was funded by HCI and concluded that
	firearms were 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the 
	household than they were to be used to KILL (not just self-defense)
	an intruder.

	Even HCI distanced itself from this discredited work (the statistical
	science was full of holes) for over a year. I'm quite suprised that
	Sarah would bring it back up. I suppose she overcome with glee
	regarding Clinton's victory in the presidential election. I guess
	she forgot to take a headcount in the Congress.

Jim

    The child murder rate in the US, not including firearms is still 4X the
    average for developed countries.  As has been said in the past, address
    the problem of violence in society, not the number of firearms.  

    
    	Ah statistics aren't they wonderful?  you and I can read the same 
    group of numbers and have two totally different conclusions.

    Joe

    >>There were also references citing studies that a handgun in the home
    >>was 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the household or
    >>a friend rather than in self-defense. 

    >Ah Jamie, still finding a need to bend the truth I see. The
    >"reference" was a quote from Sarah Brady (not the CDC)

    Could you point out exactly where I said the references came from the
    CDC. I was very careful not to attribute the references to them. I just
    pointed out that article that I read made reference to it.

    Strange how you can swallow whole the ludicrous 2.5 million good deeds
    done each year with guns, but as to facing the fact that they are a
    danger when they are kept at home, you have to find fault with it.

    Mind you if 2.5 million good things must happen each year in the USA
    thanks to guns, a proportional number of good things must not happen in
    the UK because of the lack of guns.
    
    Jamie.

    Well over the weekend another madman got his hands on a gun and started
    shooting. The location is New Zealand and the toll six dead, five
    wounded.

    This is New Zealand's worst mass murder since Nov. 13, 1990, when David
    Gray slaughtered 13 people during 24 hours of terror in the tiny Otago
    seaside settlement of Aramoana. 

    Is it my imagination, or are these incidents coming closer together?

    Anyway we all know that actually doing anything about it, in the way
    of passing laws will be totally useless, or so the NRA say. That is when
    they can tear themselves away from the fighting within their own ranks.

    Executive vice president, LaPierre, who has achieved fame by reducing
    the contents of NRA's coffers from $80 million to $49 million, and sent
    it's membership diving from 3.5 million to 2.8 million, thanks mainly
    to a brilliantly worded letter in which he referred to to federal
    agents as "jack-booted government thugs.", managed to hold on to his
    position by the skin of his teeth. It looks like they could spend some
    time cleaning up their own act before telling the UK which laws will
    work and which will not. 

    Jamie.                   

FWIW, "jack-booted thugs" was a phrase first used by Dick 
Gephart in the early 80's on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.

We now return you to your LDUC, already in progress.

daryll

   <<< Note 591.765 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "I feel all feak and weeble, doc" >>>

>    Could you point out exactly where I said the references came from the
>    CDC. I was very careful not to attribute the references to them. 

	You were very careful indeed. It is the LACK of reference after
	heading off your reply as "an interesting document published by
	the CDC" that is the sleazy part. Please note, I did not accuse
	you of actually lying, just bending the truth to its limit.

>    Strange how you can swallow whole the ludicrous 2.5 million good deeds
>    done each year with guns, but as to facing the fact that they are a
>    danger when they are kept at home, you have to find fault with it.

	A firearm that is misused is dangerous. By itself it is merely a 
	collection of precision parts. Those 2.5 million uses that prevent
	a crime mostly happen in the home, even if we weigh the misuses
	in the home the "cost/benefit" still comes out well in favor of
	the plus side.

>    Mind you if 2.5 million good things must happen each year in the USA
>    thanks to guns, a proportional number of good things must not happen in
>    the UK because of the lack of guns.
 
	To some degree, you are correct. While home invasions are exceedingly 
	rare in the UK, you have no defense against such an event. In fact,
	as I understand it you do not have the legal right to use deadly
	force against an intruder.

Jim

   <<< Note 591.766 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "I feel all feak and weeble, doc" >>>

>    Well over the weekend another madman got his hands on a gun and started
>    shooting. The location is New Zealand and the toll six dead, five
>    wounded.

	I couldn't find anything in the CNN World News section. Was the gun
	legally acquired?

>    This is New Zealand's worst mass murder since Nov. 13, 1990, when David
>    Gray slaughtered 13 people during 24 hours of terror in the tiny Otago
>    seaside settlement of Aramoana. 

	What was the weapon used in this incident?

>It looks like they could spend some
>    time cleaning up their own act before telling the UK which laws will
>    work and which will not. 

	I've checked the NRA homepage. There is no statement or news release
	even commenting on the new UK laws, let alone taking a position.
	Is the truth something that the hoplophobes can not deal with?
	You decide.

Jim

    I have a gun permit with the right to carry anything but a machine gun.
    I can use a gun for anything legal. I consider it an honor and my right
    as an american citizen to have this. It was part of what this country
    was built. Anyone going back (in the not too distance past) in history
    would see how the jews were rounded up an slaughtered. Now would that
    have happened if they would have been able to defend themselves? All
    thru history - just look at the history and what happened (in the not
    too distant past) in Lexinton and Concord. Now if we didn't have guns
    to be able to defend our personal freedom then we would still have a
    king (british) and be subjects. Also think about it..we have never had
    much war here (cival war maybe) but another country would think twice
    about landing here and expecting to wipe out a large area...do you know
    why? Because we in America carry guns. They do not know how many of us
    would come out of our houses and fight. 
    
    As for the madmen of this world...I think the criminal system should be
    the one to deal with them...
    
    Wasn't Hitler a madman when he rounded up all those defenseless jews?
    At least I can sleep at night knowing that if that happened today then
    I wouldn't be going easily...especially if all my neighbors had guns
    too.
    
    It's still toooo recent in history...I'd be sorely upset if the
    goverenment tried to stop us from bearing arms...might as well go back
    to having a king and becoming subjects. If the government took the guns
    it would only be a beginning to oppression....that's putting it mildly.

    Re .769

    I believe the weapon was some form of shotgun. It was not stated in the
    reports that I read if it was legally acquired or not. However there is
    a call out for New Zealand to get its act together and tighten up its
    gun control laws.

    Re .770

    Ah yes I always remember that Hitler did not dare invade Sweden because
    every Swedish adult doesn't have an army rifle at home. Apparently it
    was the same reason he did not invade the UK.

    Jamie.

   <<< Note 591.771 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "I feel all feak and weeble, doc" >>>

>    I believe the weapon was some form of shotgun. It was not stated in the
>    reports that I read if it was legally acquired or not. However there is
>    a call out for New Zealand to get its act together and tighten up its
>    gun control laws.

	Everytime there is a shooting, there is a call for more gun control
	by those who simply don't understand how futile this is. If the gun
	was not legally acquired, would passing another law make a difference?
	And for that matter, if one is willing to break the laws against
	murder, what makes anyone think that a law against owning a firearm
	will stop the criminal?

>Apparently it
>    was the same reason he did not invade the UK.

	Hitler did not invade the UK due almost soley to the efforts of the
	RAF during September 1940. Of course during that same summer and
	fall, NRA members (and a lot of other US citizens) donated personal
	arms, primarily rifles, to the British Home Guard.

Jim

>	Everytime there is a shooting, there is a call for more gun control
>	by those who simply don't understand how futile this is. If the gun
>	was not legally acquired, would passing another law make a difference?
>	And for that matter, if one is willing to break the laws against
>	murder, what makes anyone think that a law against owning a firearm
>	will stop the criminal?
    
    As has been said many times, the reason for this belief is that laws
    against owning firearms will reduce the supply of both legal and
    illegal firearms.  The vast majority of illegally owned firearms start
    off as legally manufactured and sold weapons.
    
    Quite apart from that, some fraction of the murderous use of firearms
    is done in the heat of the moment, rather than as a result of careful
    planning.  If no firearm were present, some proportion of these
    incidents would not end up as murders.
    
    Or are you claiming that every gun that is fired at another human is
    the result of careful planning and a conscious decision to kill, and
    that no gun is ever fired in anger?
    
    John

    John,
    
    I doubt Jim is pointing out that guns are never used in the heat of the
    moment, anymore than fists, flames, knives, ropes.........
    
    

<<< Note 591.773 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    As has been said many times, the reason for this belief is that laws
>    against owning firearms will reduce the supply of both legal and
>    illegal firearms. 

	THe first part of this equation is probably true. For example, in
	the UK the legal ownership of firearms is roughly half of what it
	was 15 years ago. But the latter half of your statement does not
	prove true. Again, using the UK as an example, the illegal use of
	firearms in robberies is roughly 5 times higher than it was 15 years
	ago.

> The vast majority of illegally owned firearms start
>    off as legally manufactured and sold weapons.
 
	I would expect that virtually all started off as legal arms. And,
	according to the BATF, most (over 98%) stay completely legal.

>    Quite apart from that, some fraction of the murderous use of firearms
>    is done in the heat of the moment, rather than as a result of careful
>    planning.  If no firearm were present, some proportion of these
>    incidents would not end up as murders.
 
	There is some percentage, but there is no evidence that the lack
	of a firearm (via legal prohibition) reduces the murder rate. In
	fact, the opposite seems to be true.

>    Or are you claiming that every gun that is fired at another human is
>    the result of careful planning and a conscious decision to kill, and
>    that no gun is ever fired in anger?
 
	Not at all. What I am saying is that no gun control law has reduced
	the murder rate. You are welcome to try and find such an occurence,
	but so far no one has been able to come up with one.



Jim

    I would have to agree with Jim...criminals don't abide by the
    law..therefore only criminals would end up with the guns and we would
    be defenseless.
    
    If someone wanted to kill in the heat of the moment...taking a life is
    pretty easy...someone could do that with any weapon...why not just make
    laws tougher so the judges don't keep letting these people out on the
    street.
    
    I really don't care what the laws are in other countries...only the US.

>>    As has been said many times, the reason for this belief is that laws
>>    against owning firearms will reduce the supply of both legal and
>>    illegal firearms. 
>
>	THe first part of this equation is probably true. For example, in
>	the UK the legal ownership of firearms is roughly half of what it
>	was 15 years ago. But the latter half of your statement does not
>	prove true. Again, using the UK as an example, the illegal use of
>	firearms in robberies is roughly 5 times higher than it was 15 years
>	ago.
    
    You misunderstand me.  I said "...will reduce the supply...", not
    "...will reduce the number of times used over a long period...".  The
    latter is the result of many factors, only one of which is supply. 
    Other factors include perceived need, "acceptability" of carrying a
    firearm, general level of violence in the society, overall crime rate,
    all of which are related but distinct concepts,
    
    There is certainly evidence that the general level of violence in the
    UK (as elsewhere) is increasing, and I would expect this to correlate
    with an increase in the illegal use of firearms, regardless of the
    presence or absence of restrictions.
    
    John

    re:  the incident in New Zealand
    
    The WSJ had a paragraph in Monday's news column about this;
    said the killings/shooting happened at a family gathering,
    the man was 22 and had a history of mental illness.

    History of mental illness, at least in the US, precludes owning
    firearms legally, at least according to the FFL form I have had to fill
    out at dealers shops.  
    
    meg

<<< Note 591.777 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

    
>    You misunderstand me.  I said "...will reduce the supply...", not
>    "...will reduce the number of times used over a long period...".

	You are actually the first pro gun control person that has admitted
	that their purpose was to "get the guns", not reduce or even control
	crime. I must say that I admire such honesty.

>    There is certainly evidence that the general level of violence in the
>    UK (as elsewhere) is increasing, and I would expect this to correlate
>    with an increase in the illegal use of firearms, regardless of the
>    presence or absence of restrictions.
 
	Which is precisely the point that I've been making all this time.
	Gun control restictions to not control crime. Conversely, gun 
	availibility does not cause crime.

	I realize that this does not change your mind concerning your desire
	for more gun control, but at least you are honest about your goals.

Jim

>	You are actually the first pro gun control person that has admitted
>	that their purpose was to "get the guns", not reduce or even control
>	crime. I must say that I admire such honesty.

    And that's not what I said either.  The immediate purpose of gun
    control legislation is obviously to "get the guns", but the intent
    behind that is a belief that with fewer guns around there will be fewer
    cases where guns are used against humans, all other things being equal. 
    Of course, all other things are never equal over the long term - an
    environment of increasing violence correlates with increased gun usage,
    regardless of the availability of guns (assuming it's non-zero).  The 
    hope of gun control advocates is that if guns are less available to
    criminals, then the use of guns will be less than it would have been in
    a better armed society.
    
    There are several steps that might be challenged in this reasoning, and
    it would be instructive if you would explain which step(s) you see as
    the incorrect one(s):
    
    1)  Limiting legal ownership of weapons reduces the supply of legal
        weapons.
    
    2)  Since the vast majority of illegal weapons were originally legal,
        over time the supply of illegal weapons will also be reduced.  I
        accept that "over time" will likely be a long period, since guns
        are durable items, and the only way they can really vanish from
        circulation is by confiscation.  This is also why it's pointless
        to compare crime rates immediately before and after the enactment
        of gun control legislation (as the NRA is so fond of doing), since
        the short term effect of such legislation will obviously have no
        significant effect on illegal weapons.  Note that legal purchase 
        of weapons by criminals _would_ be immediately impacted by such
        legislation, but that is also a small effect in the short term. 
    
        Also, any sudden ban on gun ownership _must_ be accompanied by a
        buy-back program in order to prevent former legal gun owners from
        attempting to recoup their costs by selling their now illegal
        weapons on the black market, thus aggravating the problem that the
        legislation is attempting to address.
    
    3)  Decreased supply will cause increased cost to criminals wishing to
        obtain weapons.  Therefore some criminals will choose not to carry a 
        gun, or possibly may even choose not to commit a crime without one.
        Also, if fewer people are likely to be armed, the perceived need 
        for criminals to be armed would be less.  After all, If you don't 
        feel secure in your own home without a gun, I'm sure that many 
        would-be intruders likewise wouldn't feel safe there without one.
    
    
    The argument really boils down to the following:
    
    Gun control might be expected to cause an initial increase in crime
    (since the initial effect would be to reduce only legal weapons, and
    this reduction may shift the balance between criminal and defensive
    weapons), although this tendency may be balanced somewhat by a
    reduction in the perceived need for arms by criminals.  The long term 
    effect will be to reduce illegal weapons as well.  In a society like
    the US where gun availability is already high, the short-term cost is
    likely to be too high to bear, regardless of the long-term benefit. 
    However, in the UK, where gun ownership is insignificant, the short
    term costs will be similarly insignificant, and the long-term benefits
    are probably worth it.
    
    
    Of course, a better approach to criminal violence (and probably the
    only approach that stands a chance of working in the US) would be to
    try to address the root causes of violence in society as a whole.  But
    that would take substantially more money than gun control and would run
    into freedom of expression problems.  Until society is willing to bear
    these costs, gun control won't go away.  
    
    
    John

    John,
    
    Ever hear of the drug war?  the government acknowledges that, at best
    they are stopping 10% of the contraband coming into this country.  I
    fail to see where making another lucrative market in illicit goods is
    going to do anything to drop the violence rate in this country.  The
    predatory criminals in the country will still have access to offensive
    nd defensive weapons, and if history shows anything, better weapons
    than anything available on the legal market today, unless you are
    willing to pay a horrendous amount of money and background check.  all
    this will do will be to make a criminal out of people like me, or leave
    us defenseless.  Thanks, I don't want the local thugs to have access to
    fully automatic weapons, while I can have nothing more lethal than
    pepper spray.  
    
    meg   

>    Ever hear of the drug war?  the government acknowledges that, at best
>    they are stopping 10% of the contraband coming into this country.  I
>    fail to see where making another lucrative market in illicit goods is
>    going to do anything to drop the violence rate in this country.  The
>    predatory criminals in the country will still have access to offensive
>    nd defensive weapons, and if history shows anything, better weapons
>    than anything available on the legal market today, unless you are
>    willing to pay a horrendous amount of money and background check.  all
>    this will do will be to make a criminal out of people like me, or leave
>    us defenseless.  Thanks, I don't want the local thugs to have access to
>    fully automatic weapons, while I can have nothing more lethal than
>    pepper spray.  
    
    I guessed you missed the part of my note where I said that, for
    countries like the US, with an already high level of firearm
    availability, I don't believe that the probable long-term benefits of
    gun control would be worth the short-term costs.  While I dispute the 
    economics behind this sentence: "I fail to see where making another
    lucrative market in illicit goods is going to do anything to drop the
    violence rate in this country", I won't want to go into that here,
    since we seem agree in our conclusions even if we got there by
    different routes.
    
    I don't believe that restrictive gun legislation can successfully be
    used to reduce gun availability in the US - the costs would be too
    high; however, in countries like the UK it can be used to maintain
    their current low levels of availability.    
    
    John

<<< Note 591.781 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    And that's not what I said either.

	If it's not what you said, then the rest of this makes very little 
	sense.

>  The immediate purpose of gun
>    control legislation is obviously to "get the guns", but the intent
>    behind that is a belief that with fewer guns around there will be fewer
>    cases where guns are used against humans, all other things being equal. 

	A belief that is not borne out by the realities as even you go one to
	admit.

>    Of course, all other things are never equal over the long term - an
>    environment of increasing violence correlates with increased gun usage,
>    regardless of the availability of guns (assuming it's non-zero).

	A quick test. Violent crime in the US is, (A) increasing, or (B)
	decreasing over the last 5 years.

>  The 
>    hope of gun control advocates is that if guns are less available to
>    criminals, then the use of guns will be less than it would have been in
>    a better armed society.
 
	"Less available to criminals" is an interesting concept. What makes
	think that a person that is willing to murder, rob or assault 
	someone else, will be detterred by a law restricting guns? After
	all, it is already a violation of Federal law for a convicted felon
	to purchase, own or possess a firearm. Violation of this law carries
	a potential 10 year prison sentence. Do you really believe another
	law is needed?

>    1)  Limiting legal ownership of weapons reduces the supply of legal
>        weapons.
 
	True, but then the problem is not legal firearms owned by law-abiding
	citizens.

>    2)  Since the vast majority of illegal weapons were originally legal,
>        over time the supply of illegal weapons will also be reduced.  I
>        accept that "over time" will likely be a long period,

	A very long period. FIrearms that were produced well over 100 years
	ago are still quite serviceable today.

>and the only way they can really vanish from
>        circulation is by confiscation. 

	That would certainly be an interesting excersize.

> This is also why it's pointless
>        to compare crime rates immediately before and after the enactment
>        of gun control legislation (as the NRA is so fond of doing), since
>        the short term effect of such legislation will obviously have no
>        significant effect on illegal weapons.

	OF course you will have to define "short term" for us. One year?
	Two? Ten? How about 30 years? Is that still short term? How about
	60 years?

>  Note that legal purchase 
>        of weapons by criminals _would_ be immediately impacted by such
>        legislation, but that is also a small effect in the short term. 
 
	There is no such thing as a "legal purchase by criminals". As I noted
	above a felon can not legally buy a firearm. Now Sarah will tell you
	that the Brady law has prevented tens of thousands of criminals from
	buying guns. But curiously there have been a total of SEVEN criminal
	prosecutions since this law went into effect.

>        Also, any sudden ban on gun ownership _must_ be accompanied by a
>        buy-back program in order to prevent former legal gun owners from
>        attempting to recoup their costs by selling their now illegal
>        weapons on the black market, thus aggravating the problem that the
>        legislation is attempting to address.
 
	Very few legal owners would sell their guns into such a market. 
	They would be far more likely to find a way to store their guns
	where the authorities could not find them.

	But let's look at compensation plan on the assumption that it 
	would actually work. 

	According to the BATF there are at least 210 million firearms in
	private hands. Let's assume an average value of $400 per gun (a
	conservative figure). That works out to $84 BILLION in compensation.
	And this plan STILL does not address the illegal guns in the hands
	of criminals.

	So you want the taxpayers to pay $84 Billion for a plan that does
	not reduce crime? Good luck selling that idea.
   
>    3)  Decreased supply will cause increased cost to criminals wishing to
>        obtain weapons.

	A poor assumption. I'll give you one example. A legal full-auto
	AK47, with the transfer tax paid will cost between $1,000 and 
	$1,500 (plus the $200 tax stamp). An illegal full-auto AK47 can
	be had on the streets of any large city for about $500.

>  Therefore some criminals will choose not to carry a 
>        gun, or possibly may even choose not to commit a crime without one.
>        Also, if fewer people are likely to be armed, the perceived need 
>        for criminals to be armed would be less.

	Again, a poor assumption. Look at the UK. A society with a very low
	violent crime rate, no history of a real "gun culture" where even 
	the police are, for the most part, unarmed. And yet, even with a
	severe reduction in the number of legally held firearms the illegal
	use of firearms is FIVE TIMES HIGHER than it was 15 years ago.
	The record in the US is much the same for those jurisdictions that
	have severely restricted legal firearms ownership.

>    Gun control might be expected to cause an initial increase in crime
>    (since the initial effect would be to reduce only legal weapons, and
>    this reduction may shift the balance between criminal and defensive
>    weapons),

	And do you have an answer for those who will be victimized during
	this "initial" period?

>The long term 
>    effect will be to reduce illegal weapons as well. 

	You may want to believe this, but there is no data that shows this
	to be the case. Whether it is here or in some other country, the
	effect of prohibition is that the availibility of the proscribed 
	item is NOT reduced.

>    However, in the UK, where gun ownership is insignificant, the short
>    term costs will be similarly insignificant, and the long-term benefits
>    are probably worth it.
 
	A comfort to all the victims, I'm sure.

>    Of course, a better approach to criminal violence (and probably the
>    only approach that stands a chance of working in the US) would be to
>    try to address the root causes of violence in society as a whole.

	We agree on this.

>  But
>    that would take substantially more money than gun control

	But at least, unlike gun control, there would be an eventual payback.

> and would run
>    into freedom of expression problems. 

	You'll need to elaborate on this.

> Until society is willing to bear
>    these costs, gun control won't go away.  
 
	So you admit that gun control is merely useless window dressing.


Jim

>	"Less available to criminals" is an interesting concept. What makes
>	think that a person that is willing to murder, rob or assault 
>	someone else, will be detterred by a law restricting guns?
    
    Please identify where in my notes I have given you the impression that
    I believe this?  Or are you simply making a strawman argument? As far
    as access to weapons by criminals goes, this type of law isn't supposed
    to deter a criminal from buying a weapon; it's supposed to deter a
    non-criminal from selling it - i.e. take away the supply channel.  
    
>	OF course you will have to define "short term" for us. One year?
>	Two? Ten? How about 30 years? Is that still short term? How about
>	60 years?
    
    The more guns in circulation, the longer "short term" is.  I'd guess in
    the US we'd be talking of something in the 10-40 year range.  That this
    "short-term" period would be so long is the major reason why I agree
    with your belief that increased gun ownership restrictions would not be
    useful in the US.
    
>	There is no such thing as a "legal purchase by criminals". 
    
    Sure there is.  Or do you have such faith in the police and legal
    systems that you believe that all criminals have already been convicted
    of a crime?  Criminals (i.e. people who commit crimes) can purchase
    weapons legally until they're convicted of a crime.  
    
>>        Also, any sudden ban on gun ownership _must_ be accompanied by a
>>        buy-back program in order to prevent former legal gun owners from
>>        attempting to recoup their costs by selling their now illegal
>>        weapons on the black market, thus aggravating the problem that the
>>        legislation is attempting to address.
> 
>	Very few legal owners would sell their guns into such a market. 
>	They would be far more likely to find a way to store their guns
>	where the authorities could not find them.
    
    That'd be fine too.  Just so long as they go out of circulation.
    
>>    3)  Decreased supply will cause increased cost to criminals wishing to
>>        obtain weapons.
>
>	A poor assumption. I'll give you one example. A legal full-auto
>	AK47, with the transfer tax paid will cost between $1,000 and 
>	$1,500 (plus the $200 tax stamp). An illegal full-auto AK47 can
>	be had on the streets of any large city for about $500.
    
    Sure.  That fits the economic model.  The availability of legal weapons
    puts a cap on the price that can be charged for stolen, or illegally
    sold weapons, as well as providing a source from which stolen
    weapons can come.  You would expect an illegal item to go for not much
    more than the cost of the equivalent legal item, and unless it's very
    hard to use the legal channel as a source for the illegal one, the
    price for the illegal version ought to be significantly less than the
    legal one.
    
    Take away the legal channel, and the price competition goes away,
    allowing black market prices to rise.  It would also (over time) take
    away the source pool from which stolen weapons come, once again
    increasing the price.
    
    John

<<< Note 591.785 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    The more guns in circulation, the longer "short term" is.  I'd guess in
>    the US we'd be talking of something in the 10-40 year range.

	The first national level gun control law in the US is 63 years old.
	Handgun restrictions in New York City  that are still in force today
	are 86 years old. Restrictions on sales of all firearms go back 29
	years. The ban on the new manufacture of full-auto firearms for
	civilian use is 11 years old. And the Brady law is coming up on its 
	3rd birthday. And none have them have had any effect. Seems like an
	awful long time to wait.

>    Sure there is.  Or do you have such faith in the police and legal
>    systems that you believe that all criminals have already been convicted
>    of a crime?  Criminals (i.e. people who commit crimes) can purchase
>    weapons legally until they're convicted of a crime.  
 
	True. Of course until somone IS convicted of a crime, they are
	presumed to be innocent. Or is this another change you would like
	to see made?

>    That'd be fine too.  Just so long as they go out of circulation.
 
	As long as the guns exist, they ARE "in circulation".

>    Sure.  That fits the economic model.  The availability of legal weapons
>    puts a cap on the price that can be charged for stolen, or illegally
>    sold weapons, as well as providing a source from which stolen
>    weapons can come.  You would expect an illegal item to go for not much
>    more than the cost of the equivalent legal item, and unless it's very
>    hard to use the legal channel as a source for the illegal one, the
>    price for the illegal version ought to be significantly less than the
>    legal one.
 
>    Take away the legal channel, and the price competition goes away,
>    allowing black market prices to rise.  It would also (over time) take
>    away the source pool from which stolen weapons come, once again
>    increasing the price.
 
	Wrong assumptions. The legal channel for firearms regulated by
	the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not open to criminals at
	all. There is an lengthy and extensive FBI background check for
	anyone wishing to purchase such arms legally, therefore there is 
	no "price pressure" from the legal guns. The illegal guns are 
	cheaper for a couple of reasons. First is probably because most
	are stolen making the "investment" minimal so the sale price
	is nearly all profit. Second, those that are not stolen are
	smuggled into the country, but the "true" (intrinsic) value
	of these guns is really not all that high (an AK probably is
	produced for around $100), so even with a reasonable markup
	the price is still not close to that of a legal gun.

	On the other hand, bans and restrictions do drive up the price
	of legal firearms. The value of legally owned full-autos jumped
	significantly since 1986 when manufacture for other than military
	or police sales were prohibited. The same has happened for the
	so-called assault weapons that were banned in 1995. Guns that
	sold for $500 now command $1200 or more. Even the high capacity 
	magazines I own have nearly quadrupled in value (I paid $25 or so
	and now they sell for $80-90) since the 10 round limit was passed.

	Meanwhile, there has been very little change in the "street
	price" of illegal guns.

Jim

    .773
    
>    As has been said many times, the reason for this belief is that laws
>    against owning firearms will reduce the supply of both legal and
>    illegal firearms.  The vast majority of illegally owned firearms start
>    off as legally manufactured and sold weapons.
 
    While this may be true in the long run, what you inevitably do is
    disarm the law-abiding while creating a black market for firearms
    (for the criminals).  Now, you have armed criminals who
    have free rein over a now defenseless population.  They can break into
    any home without fear of being shot, since firearms have been outlawed.
    
    If you would take a moment and try to look at this from a criminal's
    viewpoint, you might be able to see the folly in disarming the
    law-abiding.
       
>    Quite apart from that, some fraction of the murderous use of firearms
>    is done in the heat of the moment, 
    
    A statistically insignificant fraction of murders, actually.  The media
    made a big play over this a few years ago, when the anti-gunners were
    trying to pass the national 7-day waiting period (before being able to
    purchase a firearm).  The net result, empirically, seems to be that
    more people (women, specifically) died as a result of this law, than were 
    saved.  There are many reports of women who were killed (by
    x-boyfriends, etc. that had restraining orders against them) while
    waiting to obtain a firearm.  
    
    Personally, I find it inexcusable that a woman has to wait 7-days in
    order to be able to protect herself from imminent harm, and can't
    understand the mentality that would force her to wait.
    
>    rather than as a result of careful
>    planning.  If no firearm were present, some proportion of these
>    incidents would not end up as murders.
 
    You simply do not know this.  If the person is in such a rage, then
    they are most certainly capable of using a knife, club, fists, etc.  
    Sure, they may not be murdered with a firearm, but dead is dead.  
       
    
    The mentality I see is that if we can only get rid of firearms, we
    could save lives.  This attitude does not address the problem, which has
    nothing at all to do with firearms (which are inanimate objects -
    neither good or evil).  The simple and hard truth is that we cannot
    prevent murders.  Since prevention is impossible, it is best that
    everyone be on equal footing.  An old lady in a wheelchair may not be able
    to run away or escape harm, but if she has a firearm, she CAN defend
    herself.  A battered woman who breaks up with her violent boyfriend
    cannot stop him from breaking into her house with intend to rape/kill her, 
    but she is not a weak victim any more if she has a firearm to defend 
    herself.
    
    Taking the only real equalization tool from those who would otherwise
    be easy victims to larger/stronger/armed aggressors, is immoral.
    
    Just wait until a family member of yours is "stalked", like my mother
    was a couple of years ago.  She was lucky enough to have recieved her
    firearm before the creep tried to break into her house.  The ending of
    this night could have been quite different had she not had the firearm
    (and she didn't even have to shoot the stalker).  Tell her that
    her sleepless nights, while waiting 7 days to receive her handgun, were
    for the good of this country.  Tell her how well she is protected by
    "heat of the moment" aggression, due to this law. 
    
    You can't protect everyone from themselves and others.  You can,
    however, put violent criminals behind bars for life.  You can and
    should allow people the means to defend their lives and families.
    It's a violent world, why make things harder for the good folk?
    
    
    -steve

RE: 591.787 - ACISS2::LEECH in response to a previous reply:

> >    planning.  If no firearm were present, some proportion of these
> >    incidents would not end up as murders.
>    You simply do not know this.  If the person is in such a rage, then
>    they are most certainly capable of using a knife, club, fists, etc.  
>    Sure, they may not be murdered with a firearm, but dead is dead.  

Certainly, I believe that indeed "some proportion of these incidents would
not end up as murders"... even if only on the basis that guns are generally
much more effective at killing than knives, clubs, and fists. 

Look at all the deer hunters that use clubs because their victums can 
outrun a bullet [?!?!?], but not a good ole club! 8-O Or look at all 
those drive-by stabbings and when was the last time you heard of someone
getting killed by a stray fist through their livingroom window, door or 
wall?

I think  there would be fewer murders *accomplished* without guns *just*
because guns are easy to use and more efficient at killing than most
alternatives most of the time. If guns were not more efficient then why
would they be sooooooo important to some noters here to have in their home
as "defense" against a hypothetical [maybe some of them have already shot 
an intruder, removing the hypothetical from the scenerio] intruder? Why
not just use a knife - very sharp and much less expensive; or a club - 
recyclable in many cases and probably better for the environment?

Maybe gun are prefered as killing tools [I have heard that one should
assume that a gun pointed at someone is loaded and the for the person
pointed at the presumed intent is to kill, and that one should never 
point a gun at a person unless there is intent to kill... this was from
my father, a navy seal team member] because they are really good tools 
for that purpose. Like a wrench can be used to embed a nail into a board, 
but a hammer, a tool made for the purpose, works much better.

Guns are made for killing. They can be used for other things, but that
is what they are made for; like a claw hammer is made to drive nails.

So, if less efficient tools are used then less "work" usually gets 
done. If the work is killing and the efficient tool is a gun, then
probably less killing gets done.

	-Stephanie

     <<< Note 591.788 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>Certainly, I believe that indeed "some proportion of these incidents would
>not end up as murders"... even if only on the basis that guns are generally
>much more effective at killing than knives, clubs, and fists. 

	It really depends on whether the intent is truly to commit
	murder. If it is, then the lack of one tool is simply replaced
	by another.

>I think  there would be fewer murders *accomplished* without guns *just*
>because guns are easy to use and more efficient at killing than most
>alternatives most of the time. If guns were not more efficient then why
>would they be sooooooo important to some noters here to have in their home
>as "defense" against a hypothetical [maybe some of them have already shot 
>an intruder, removing the hypothetical from the scenerio] intruder? 

	The effectiveness of a firearm as a defensive tool does NOT
	require that the criminal be killed (why is it that so many
	anti-gunners are so bloodthirsty??).

	If I can make the criminal run away without harming me or my
	family, I consider that a win (why do you insist that I must
	kill him??).

	If he does not run away and forces me to shoot him, but he
	does not die, I consider that a win (why do you insist that
	I deliver a coup de grace??).

>Why
>not just use a knife - very sharp and much less expensive; or a club - 
>recyclable in many cases and probably better for the environment?

	Why should anyone take such a chance? Are you forming a group
	"Fair Play for Criminals"? Why are you so pro-crime?

>Maybe gun are prefered as killing tools [I have heard that one should
>assume that a gun pointed at someone is loaded and the for the person
>pointed at the presumed intent is to kill, and that one should never 
>point a gun at a person unless there is intent to kill... 

	Certainly a good rule. Because a firearm has the capability
	of causing great bodily harm, including death, you should never
	point one at another person unless you do intend to do that
	kind of harm.

>Guns are made for killing.

	We've been over this nonsense before. You refuse to learn.

	SEVENTY PERCENT of people shot by a firearm SURVIVE.

Jim

    
>	The first national level gun control law in the US is 63 years old.
>	Handgun restrictions in New York City  that are still in force today
>	are 86 years old. Restrictions on sales of all firearms go back 29
>	years. The ban on the new manufacture of full-auto firearms for
>	civilian use is 11 years old. And the Brady law is coming up on its 
>	3rd birthday. And none have them have had any effect. Seems like an
>	awful long time to wait.
    
    As I have said at least four times, I agree with you that the long-term
    benefits would probably not be worth the short-term problems it would
    cause in the US.  
    
    I don't see the connection between the last sentence of the quoted
    paragraph and the rest of the para, though.  The last sentence
    presumably refers to my 10-40 year guess of what "long-term"  would
    mean in the US; the rest of the para doesn't seem to have anything to
    do with an effective ban on the legal sale of firearms to individuals,
    which is what I thought we were talking about.   If you'd rather
    discuss the Brady law, it'd be less confusing if you did so in a
    seperate note thread, one that doesn't include my unrelated text.
    
>>    Sure there is.  Or do you have such faith in the police and legal
>>    systems that you believe that all criminals have already been convicted
>>    of a crime?  Criminals (i.e. people who commit crimes) can purchase
>>    weapons legally until they're convicted of a crime.  
> 
>	True. Of course until somone IS convicted of a crime, they are
>	presumed to be innocent. Or is this another change you would like
>	to see made?

    I do wish you'd stop trying to put words into my mouth.  Nowhere have I
    implied that I want to abandon presumption of innocence.  Since we agree 
    that an unconvicted criminal can legally purchase weapons, that is one
    way that the legal channel can feed the illegal one (another way being
    stolen legal weapons).
    
>>    That'd be fine too.  Just so long as they go out of circulation.
> 
>	As long as the guns exist, they ARE "in circulation".
    
    Not in economic terms.  Its mere existence won't affect the price at
    which similar weapons change hands.
    
>	Wrong assumptions. The legal channel for firearms regulated by
>	the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not open to criminals at
>	all. There is an lengthy and extensive FBI background check for
>	anyone wishing to purchase such arms legally, therefore there is 
>	no "price pressure" from the legal guns. 
    
    As you agreed above, unconvicted criminals may purchase guns just as
    legally as a non-criminal.
    
>       The illegal guns are 
>	cheaper for a couple of reasons. First is probably because most
>	are stolen making the "investment" minimal so the sale price
>	is nearly all profit. 
    
    This is another of the ways that the legal channel feeds the illegal
    one. 
    
>       Second, those that are not stolen are
>	smuggled into the country, but the "true" (intrinsic) value
>	of these guns is really not all that high (an AK probably is
>	produced for around $100), so even with a reasonable markup
>	the price is still not close to that of a legal gun.

    This source of illegal weapons would not be significantly affected by
    any US gun control laws.  However, the gradual elimination of price
    competition from legally purchased or stolen weapons would cause the
    price to rise even on these imported weapons.
    
>	The same has happened for the
>	so-called assault weapons that were banned in 1995. Guns that
>	sold for $500 now command $1200 or more.
    
>	Meanwhile, there has been very little change in the "street
>	price" of illegal guns.
    
    
    As a matter of interest, how does one go about determining the street
    price of illegal guns without actually purchasing one?  That's not a
    trick question - I'm genuinely interested.
    
    Quite apart from the effect of the legal sources on the illegal channel
    for full-auto weapons, the price (both street and legal) of other guns
    would also have an effect.  If I decide I need a gun, and would prefer
    a fully automatic one, and I am given a choice between a semi-automatic
    weapon for $250 and a $500 AK, I might choose the AK. If the AK were
    priced at $1000, I'd be much more likely to go with the other.  So you
    have to look at prices throughout the whole market - you can't just
    look at legal and illegal AKs.
    
    John

From: 591.742 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>	As I said, this is not a game. Second place means death or injury.
>	I will not give up a tactical advantage by warning the intruder.
From 591.789 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>	The effectiveness of a firearm as a defensive tool does NOT
>	require that the criminal be killed (why is it that so many
>	anti-gunners are so bloodthirsty??).
From 591.789 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>	If I can make the criminal run away without harming me or my
>	family, I consider that a win...

I think you've implied, strongly, that the "criminal" comes in second bloody
place... Maybe it is just some extremists who "will not give up a tactical
advantage ..." and use the *most effective* tool available for killing from
a distance. If it does not work all the times intended, or works to that 
end when sometimes unintended a shot person, dead or alive, is quite a 
bloody mess.

	-Stephanie

<<< Note 591.790 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    As I have said at least four times, I agree with you that the long-term
>    benefits would probably not be worth the short-term problems it would
>    cause in the US.  
 
	We do agree on this at least.

>    I don't see the connection between the last sentence of the quoted
>    paragraph and the rest of the para, though. 

	I simply listed the major national level gun control laws that
	have been enacted over the years. None of them has produced 
	a significant reduction in the crime rate, whether we measure
	60 years or 3.

>    I do wish you'd stop trying to put words into my mouth.  Nowhere have I
>    implied that I want to abandon presumption of innocence.  Since we agree 
>    that an unconvicted criminal can legally purchase weapons, that is one
>    way that the legal channel can feed the illegal one (another way being
>    stolen legal weapons).
 
	"Unconvicted criminal" is a bit of a non sequitor. A person is
	not a criminal under our legal system until they are convicted.

	Now, I'm not saying that our legal system is perfect. In point
	of fact it is not. The best (or worst) example I can think of
	is the person that started the whole "assault weapons" hysteria.

	The man's name was Patrick Purdy. Prior to the time that he
	purchased a AKS47 (a semi-auto version of the AK47), he had
	been arrested at least 7 times on felony charges. Two of these
	were for drug sales, two others were firearms vioaltions. However,
	each time he was able to plea bargain the charges down to 
	misdemeanors, serving a total of 3 months in jail. He was legally
	able to purchase (after the 15 day waiting period) the guns he used 
	on the Stockton schoolyard because he could honestly answer "no" to 
	the question on the Form 4473 "Have you ever been convicted of a 
	felony?".

	Now Sarah and the Brady Bunch want us to believe that this example
	is a failure due to lax gun control laws. I believe that it is a
	failure of our legal system and the prosecutors who are not willing
	to try cases.
   
>    Not in economic terms.  Its mere existence won't affect the price at
>    which similar weapons change hands.
 
	Out of context. We were not addressing economics with this particular
	issue. We were discussing availibility to criminals.

>    This source of illegal weapons would not be significantly affected by
>    any US gun control laws.  However, the gradual elimination of price
>    competition from legally purchased or stolen weapons would cause the
>    price to rise even on these imported weapons.
 
	Price is controlled by demand and supply. Now it is possible
	that a temporary price increase would be seen if there were
	no legal guns entering the illegal market. But once the prices
	started up, more smuggling would take place bringing the prices
	down.

	That fact that there is no legal market "controlling" prices
	has very little to do with the price of illegal guns.

>    As a matter of interest, how does one go about determining the street
>    price of illegal guns without actually purchasing one?  That's not a
>    trick question - I'm genuinely interested.
 
	Read reports concerning the arrest of those caught selling
	such guns. Five or six years ago, it was possible to buy
	an illegal Sten gun (British made full-auto) for under $200
	here in the Springs. That was, of course, until the seller
	was caught.

>    Quite apart from the effect of the legal sources on the illegal channel
>    for full-auto weapons, the price (both street and legal) of other guns
>    would also have an effect.  If I decide I need a gun, and would prefer
>    a fully automatic one, and I am given a choice between a semi-automatic
>    weapon for $250 and a $500 AK, I might choose the AK. If the AK were
>    priced at $1000, I'd be much more likely to go with the other.  So you
>    have to look at prices throughout the whole market - you can't just
>    look at legal and illegal AKs.
 
	A rather convoluted rationalization. If you wnat a machinegun,
	you buy a machinegun. If you just want a generic gun, then you 
	can look to all the different options available.

	If the UK (an island) can't control the availibility of illegal guns,
	it's pretty certain that the US would have absolutely no hope of
	doing so.

	If you can't control the supply, you certainly can't control the price.

Jim

>>Certainly, I believe that indeed "some proportion of these incidents would
>>not end up as murders"... even if only on the basis that guns are generally
>>much more effective at killing than knives, clubs, and fists. 
>
>	It really depends on whether the intent is truly to commit
>	murder. If it is, then the lack of one tool is simply replaced
>	by another.
    
    Yes.  And "these incidents" were all illegal gun deaths.  Some of these
    were deliberate pre-meditated murders, and of these the majority would
    have been comitted with or without a gun.  Some were not pre-meditated. 
    Therefore "some proportion of these incidents would not end up as
    murders".  
    
    Of course, there are other situations where, if a gun had not been
    available to be used as a defensive weapon, then an extra death might
    have occured.  The dispute is over which group is larger, not whether
    the first group exists.
    
>>Guns are made for killing.
>
>	SEVENTY PERCENT of people shot by a firearm SURVIVE.
    
    Can you explain why you believe these two statements to be in conflict?
    They seem unrelated to me.
    
    John

     <<< Note 591.791 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>I think you've implied, strongly, that the "criminal" comes in second bloody
>place... Maybe it is just some extremists who "will not give up a tactical
>advantage ..." and use the *most effective* tool available for killing from
>a distance. 

Stephanie,

	I challenge you to find a reply where I have said that I will
	"use the most effective tool available for killing".

	Yes, the intruder comes in a very distant second to the welfare
	of me or my family.

	Also true, I will not give away ANY advantage to the intruder.
	This is not a duel. This is not a game where "fair play" is
	to be considered.

	This does not mean that my purpose is to kill him. That may
	happen, of course, I and I am prepared to accept that. But it
	is NOT my intent. My intent is to stop him. Period.

	Only anti-gunners like yourself and Sarah Bardy insist that
	I must kill the intruder in order to be considered "successful".

	Why?

	Is it the same reason that Sarah doesn't want children to receive
	firearms safety training?

	Because the antis NEED dead bodies to parade around to the public
	in order to garner sympathy?

	Or is it something else?

Jim

<<< Note 591.793 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>Some were not pre-meditated. 
>    Therefore "some proportion of these incidents would not end up as
>    murders".  
 
	Possibly, but we seen no real proof one way or the other.
	In fact, if we look at the UK numbers, the murder rate
	has been climbing, yet the use of firearms in murders
	has remained pretty flat. Seems that humans are capable
	of killing with other means, even when guns are not widely
	available.

>    Of course, there are other situations where, if a gun had not been
>    available to be used as a defensive weapon, then an extra death might
>    have occured.  The dispute is over which group is larger, not whether
>    the first group exists.
 
	Well, the argument on that score is pretty much over. The cost
	benefit of gun availability vs crimes (particularly murder)
	is weighed rather heavily on the side of firearms ownership.

>>>Guns are made for killing.
>>
>>	SEVENTY PERCENT of people shot by a firearm SURVIVE.
    
>    Can you explain why you believe these two statements to be in conflict?
>    They seem unrelated to me.
 
	A device that is only 30% effective in its (supposedly) intended
	use is pretty much a failure. Wouldn't you agree?

	If your car died on the road 7 out of every 10 times you took
	it out of the garage, would you make the claim "My car is made
	for transportation?"


Jim

>	"Unconvicted criminal" is a bit of a non sequitor. A person is
>	not a criminal under our legal system until they are convicted.
    
    That's why, the first time I mentioned this point, I phrased it as
    "criminals (i.e. those who commit crimes)", explicitly indicating the
    common meaning of the word as opposed to the strict legal one.  I will
    try to use the term "convicted criminal" when that is what I mean.  As
    well as people like Purdy, there are criminals who have never been
    arrested, let alone convicted.
    
>>    Not in economic terms.  Its mere existence won't affect the price at
>>    which similar weapons change hands.
> 
>	Out of context. We were not addressing economics with this particular
>	issue. We were discussing availibility to criminals.
    
    Then you misunderstood what I was saying.  Price is part of
    availability.  If I could purchase a gun for $1000, but I have only
    $10, then that gun is not available to me.
    
>	If the UK (an island) can't control the availibility of illegal guns,
>	it's pretty certain that the US would have absolutely no hope of
>	doing so.
    
    The UK has done a fairly good job of controlling gun availability, both
    legal and illegal.  Because the legal market is so small there, there
    is no large pool of legal weapons to feed the illegal market.  Being an
    island, it's harder to import weapons there than it would be here, so
    this channel is fairly narrow.
    
    Armed crime is much rarer there than it is here.  I'm not claiming that
    this is all due to the lower availability of weapons, but it is a
    factor.  Unfortunately, as I have said several times, I don't believe
    that you can use gun control to achieve the same ends here, simply
    because the genie is already out of the bottle and there are millions
    of guns in circulation.  Controlling the supply just isn't a viable
    option here.
    
    John

<<< Note 591.796 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    The UK has done a fairly good job of controlling gun availability, both
>    legal and illegal.  

	They have managed to "control" legal availibility. They done less
	well controlling illegal availibility.

>    Armed crime is much rarer there than it is here.  I'm not claiming that
>    this is all due to the lower availability of weapons, but it is a
>    factor.

	Actually, based on Home Office stats, it is not a factor. Legal
	firearms ownership in the UK went from 1922/100k in 1979 to 1611/100k
	in 1992. During the same period, the use of firearms in robbery went
	from 2.1/100k to 11.1/100k.

	So controlling legal ownership, even in a society without the 
	"gun traditions" that we have in the US, is STILL a failure
	when it comes to reducing illegal use (and by inference, illegal
	availibility).

Jim

>>    Therefore "some proportion of these incidents would not end up as
>>    murders".  
> 
>	Possibly, but we seen no real proof one way or the other.
    
    The only way it could fail to be so would be if the presence of a gun
    is always totally irrelevant to whether a murder is committed
    _in_all_cases_, even murders committed in the heat of passion.  For
    example, if you are the subject to a murderous attack, your chances of
    survival would have to be the same regardless of whether your attacker
    is armed with a gun or not.
    
    The "In fact..." part of this paragraph doesn't seem relevant, as it
    simply asserts that guns are not a requirement for murder, a point that
    nobody is disputing.
    
>>    Of course, there are other situations where, if a gun had not been
>>    available to be used as a defensive weapon, then an extra death might
>>    have occured.  The dispute is over which group is larger, not whether
>>    the first group exists.
> 
>	Well, the argument on that score is pretty much over. The cost
>	benefit of gun availability vs crimes (particularly murder)
>	is weighed rather heavily on the side of firearms ownership.
    
    Please provide the figures.  To do so, you have to plot murder (or
    armed robbery or similar) against "gun availability", which (in the
    context of the original note) does not mean "ability to legally
    purchase", but means "availability" - i.e. how hard is it really to get
    hold of a gun.  You also have to do it over a period where "overall gun
    availability" is the only thing that has changed, and the change has to
    be big enough to be statistically significant.
    
    John

<<< Note 591.798 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    The only way it could fail to be so would be if the presence of a gun
>    is always totally irrelevant to whether a murder is committed
>    _in_all_cases_, even murders committed in the heat of passion. 

	The "only" way?? I can think of a dozen ways it could fail.
	For it to be the "only" way, you would have to show that
	the ONLY variable in these cases would be the availibility
	of a gun.

>    The "In fact..." part of this paragraph doesn't seem relevant, as it
>    simply asserts that guns are not a requirement for murder, a point that
>    nobody is disputing.
 
	Not relevant? Very relevant I think. We have an example of a 
	society where gun availibility is decreasing, the use of guns
	as murder tools is flat, yet the number of murders is climbing.
	The assertion of "fewer guns equals fewer murders" does not hold
	up to such numbers.

>    Please provide the figures.  To do so, you have to plot murder (or
>    armed robbery or similar) against "gun availability", which (in the
>    context of the original note) does not mean "ability to legally
>    purchase", but means "availability" - i.e. how hard is it really to get
>    hold of a gun.  You also have to do it over a period where "overall gun
>    availability" is the only thing that has changed, and the change has to
>    be big enough to be statistically significant.
 
	Well, when you say "the only thing that has changed", you make it
	impossible. Even to the point of comparing year to year figures,
	the year has changed.

	But ignoring this.

	The state of Florida was the first of a fairly recent wave of
	jurisdictions allowing the concealed carry of firearms by
	ordinary civilians. This would certainly qualify as an increase
	in the "availibility" of such arms out on the street. In the
	first year after this law was enacted, the murder rate in
	Florida dropped 18% (the nation as a whole saw an increase
	of close to 6% that same year). The second year after the law
	went into effect, the rate dropped an additional 12% (on the
	already lower numbers).

	Today, 10 years later, the rate is 21% less than it was before
	the law was passed, while the national average is 12% higher.

	The same trend has been seen in EVERY state that passed such a law.

	Add to this the study by criminologist Gary Kleck showing that
	2.5 million crimes per year are prevented by armed civilians
	and balance it against the number of crimes committed using
	firearms and you get a little better than a two for one ratio
	in favor of an armed population.

Jim

From 591.794 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL quoting my reply in his challenge:
>	I challenge you to find a reply where I have said that I will
>	"use the most effective tool available for killing".
From 591.742 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL talking about how he reacts to an
               intruder.
>       I said that I will shoot without warning.

I believe this meets the basis of the challenge... you say you will use
a gun - something *I* described as generally "the most effective tool 
available for killing from a distance". 

Q.E.D.

From 591.794 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>       Only anti-gunners like yourself and Sarah Bardy insist that
>	I must kill the intruder in order to be considered "successful".

Your "selective quoting" [which you readily accuse me of unfairly using!!!
harrumph!] left out: 

From 591.791 - IAMNRA::SULLIVAN
> If it does not work all the times intended, or works to that end when
> sometimes unintended a shot person, dead or alive, is quite a bloody mess.

Which I believe significantly allows for your intent to include just wounding.
Still, it seem to me that based on the general nature of other statements to
"not give away ANY advantage to the intruder" it appears to me that anything
short of death or near death would give away too much advantage for the 
intruder to still use a concealed firearm. Also you went to lengths to 
make it clear that death of an "intruder"  is not considered murder in
the state of colorado. 

However, I think it *might* be denial of that persons civil rights under 
federal law. ;-)

	-Stephanie

     <<< Note 591.801 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>From 591.742 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL talking about how he reacts to an
>               intruder.
>       I said that I will shoot without warning.

>I believe this meets the basis of the challenge... you say you will use
>a gun - something *I* described as generally "the most effective tool 
>available for killing from a distance". 

>Q.E.D.

	It does not meet the criteria. Since I have said that I will
	shoot an intruder, that is all that I have said. You are the one
	that has said guns are made for killing. I am not responsible 
	for your mistaken beliefs.

>Which I believe significantly allows for your intent to include just wounding.
>Still, it seem to me that based on the general nature of other statements to
>"not give away ANY advantage to the intruder" it appears to me that anything
>short of death or near death would give away too much advantage for the 
>intruder to still use a concealed firearm.

	Your ignorance on the issue of the use of deadly force is not
	my responsibility. I have tried, very carefully to educate you
	regarding the purpose of the use of deadly force. You have
	failed to learn the difference between stopping an intruder
	and killing him.

> Also you went to lengths to 
>make it clear that death of an "intruder"  is not considered murder in
>the state of colorado. 

	It is not.

>However, I think it *might* be denial of that persons civil rights under 
>federal law. ;-)

	And you would be wrong about that as well.

Jim

    re: .788 - IAMNRA::SULLIVAN
    
me>    You simply do not know this.  If the person is in such a rage, then
me>    they are most certainly capable of using a knife, club, fists, etc.  
me>    Sure, they may not be murdered with a firearm, but dead is dead.  

>Certainly, I believe that indeed "some proportion of these incidents would
>not end up as murders"... even if only on the basis that guns are generally
>much more effective at killing than knives, clubs, and fists. 

    Let's say some do not end up as murders... what about those who do end
    up getting murdered because they cannot purchase a firearm for
    self-defense?  Keep in mind that the number of "heat of the moment" 
    murders with firearms are well over-played by the media... it is
    actually a statistically insignificant number (.0-something of a %, if
    memory serves).   Also keep in mind that out of this small number, you
    still won't save them all... and possibly won't save any.  
    
    Is it worth disarming everyone?  Is it worth insuring the victim status of
    probably a larger number of people (as they no longer have the means to 
    defend themselves against a larger/stronger/armed aggressor)?  Is it
    worth denying the "stalked" the peace of mind that they CAN defend
    themselves if forced to do so (even if the stalker never makes a house
    call)?

    Or even worse, is it worth giving the criminal element the peace of
    mind that they need not worry about getting shot when breaking and
    entering, robbing a store, or stalking a victim?
    
    Sorry, I cannot follow the "if it saves one life" mentality, when
    looking at the broader picture.  The sad truth is that people are going
    to die regardless of what you do.  The difference between you and I, is
    that I wish to make it as difficult as possible for the criminal
    element.  I want them to think twice before breaking into a home or
    robbing a store or raping a woman.  I want them to know that they risk 
    their life when commiting such crimes.  I will not willingly give them
    any peace of mind about their activities.
    
>    If guns were not more efficient then why
>would they be sooooooo important to some noters here to have in their home
>as "defense" against a hypothetical [maybe some of them have already shot 
>an intruder, removing the hypothetical from the scenerio] intruder? 
    
    Firearms are the most effective method of self-defense, that's why. 
    Not only that, but you can defend yourself without having to go
    "hand-to-hand" with an intruder who just may be able to take you out,
    regardless of what kind of hand-to-hand weapon you are carrying. 
    Then what?  What if you have children?
    
>    Why not just use a knife - very sharp and much less expensive; or a club - 
>recyclable in many cases and probably better for the environment?

    Going hand-to-hand with an intruder is stupid, unless you have no other
    recourse.  What if the intruder is armed with a bigger knife, a bigger
    club, or a firearm?  For all you know, he could be a 7th degree black
    belt in some form of martial arts, and could take you out post haste.  
    
>Guns are made for killing. 
    
    This inaccuracy has been addressed previously, on several occations. 
    
>So, if less efficient tools are used then less "work" usually gets 
>done. If the work is killing and the efficient tool is a gun, then
>probably less killing gets done.

    A knife is every bit as effective at killing as a firearm, given
    certain criteria.  Shall we ban knives, too?  
    
    Of course, what you fail to see is that you are working this issue from
    the wrong direction.  We can ban everything from guns to rocks, but the
    murder rate will likely remain the same.  The only difference will be
    that it will be survival of the fittest.  The weak and infirm will be
    defenseless, and will be easy targets for the strong and violent. 
    And of course, you would have no way to defend yourself - even if you
    were good at hand to hand - if you are being attacked by three or four
    aggressors at once.  
    
    I don't think you really see what you are advocating.  Quit
    concentrating on tools, and start concentrating on behaviors.  Punish
    those who commit such crimes (you cannot prevent the crimes) severely,
    making them examples for others who are considering violence as a means
    to an end.  Do not take away the best self-defense tool of the
    law-abiding.
    
    
    -steve

>>    The "In fact..." part of this paragraph doesn't seem relevant, as it
>>    simply asserts that guns are not a requirement for murder, a point that
>>    nobody is disputing.
> 
>	Not relevant? Very relevant I think. We have an example of a 
>	society where gun availibility is decreasing, the use of guns
>	as murder tools is flat, yet the number of murders is climbing.
>	The assertion of "fewer guns equals fewer murders" does not hold
>	up to such numbers.
    
    The reason it's not relevant is that "fewer guns equals fewer murders"
    was not the assertion that you challenged.  The assertion you
    challenged was "of those murders commited with a firearm, some fraction
    would not have ended up as murders if the firearm had not been
    available".  Arguing that there are other situations where the presence
    of a gun might prevent a murder is simply irrelevant to this point.
    
>>    The only way it could fail to be so would be if the presence of a gun
>>    is always totally irrelevant to whether a murder is committed
>>    _in_all_cases_, even murders committed in the heat of passion. 
>
>	The "only" way?? I can think of a dozen ways it could fail.
>	For it to be the "only" way, you would have to show that
>	the ONLY variable in these cases would be the availibility
>	of a gun.
    
    No.  To dispute the assertion was that "some fraction of these specific
    murders would not have ended up as murders in the absence of a
    firearm", you have to demonstrate that in no case was the presence of a
    firearm significant to the result.
    
    John

<<< Note 591.804 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>

>    The reason it's not relevant is that "fewer guns equals fewer murders"
>    was not the assertion that you challenged.  The assertion you
>    challenged was "of those murders commited with a firearm, some fraction
>    would not have ended up as murders if the firearm had not been
>    available".  Arguing that there are other situations where the presence
>    of a gun might prevent a murder is simply irrelevant to this point.
 
	I didn't. I argued that murders still occur lacking a gun.
	If you want to argue that a SPECIFIC murder might not have	
	taken place, then have at it. I am dealing with a larger
	picture than individual cases.
	
	When dealing with this issue, you have to address the statistics.
	It does not good to prevent a single murder, if a different
	one takes its place, becasue overall nothing has been accomplished.

>    No.  To dispute the assertion was that "some fraction of these specific
>    murders would not have ended up as murders in the absence of a
>    firearm", you have to demonstrate that in no case was the presence of a
>    firearm significant to the result.
 
	No, actually to dispute the assertion all I need do is ask the
	person making the assertion to prove it. It is not my responsibility
	to disprove it.

Jim

    In some ways, I am problably one of the worst sorts of gun owners,
    being a former hoplophobe myself.  Even after the event that changed my
    attitudes about self defense, it was a good 4 years before I decided I
    needed to know something about shooting, and then found out I like it
    for the sport and stress reduction far more than for the fact that it
    is the best self defense mechanism available.  (There is no way you can
    reliably hit a target when you are overstressed, and noisy weapons
    definitely focus my attention.)  Skeet could easily become an addiction
    for me if time and money permitted it, and sporting clays look like a
    real kick.  However, you could spend weeks in my house and never know
    there was a firearm unless you went into serious snoop mode.  
    
    meg

<- <<< Note 591.807 by TUXEDO::WRAY "John Wray, Distributed Processing Engineering" >>>
    
  Okay, thanx for the clarification.
  For what it's worth, I don't think scenario 1 it is the empty set, but I 
  do think that scenario 2 >> scenario 1.
kb

    
 >  For what it's worth, I don't think scenario 1 it is the empty set, but I 
 >  do think that scenario 2 >> scenario 1.

    IMO the central issue folks argue about in this space is which of these
    is greater.  That gets hidden in all the rhetoric but underlying their
    arguments is a fundamental belief of which phenomena is bigger.

    Greg

    An update on the gun control bill's progress through parliament.

    Well it went to the upper house, the unelected House of Lords, where
    the gun lobby, via the hereditary aristocracy, has great influence. 
    Here the it was amended in several ways which were guaranteed to make
    it totally unworkable.

    On its return to the lower house the amendments were promptly defeated
    as the gun lobby can only drum up about 70 MPs in a chamber with over
    600 seats. As this is an elected house, they are a bit more mindful of
    the wishes of the electorate.

    So back in its original form the bill continues to make progress.

    Jamie.

   <<< Note 591.811 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "I feel all feak and weeble, doc" >>>

>    An update on the gun control bill's progress through parliament.

	I'm unfamiliar with the parlimentary rules. Does the bill
	have to pass both houses in order to become law? Or is there
	a procedure to circumvent the House of Lords?

Jim

    The House of Lords may only delay a bill's passage, they may not stop
    it. They can make amendments, and these may or may not be accepted by
    the Commons. If the bill is in anyway connected with finance, the Lords
    are not even allowed to discuss it.

    The amount of delay that the Lords can put on a bill is limited.

    By amending the gun control bill the Lords have put their legislative
    life on the line. Labour, who have never been too happy with a non
    elected house, are seriously miffed at the Lords amending the bill.
    Given the fact that Labour's lead over the Tories is still in double
    figures the Lords may be up for a bit of reorganization in the near
    future.

    Jamie.

Jeez, the funny places you find gun control notes...

    Tom,
    
    Self defense is definitely an issue of interest to many women.  
    
    

>    Self defense is definitely an issue of interest to many women.  

Good!

    Today is the first anniversary of the Dunblane massacre. The BBC WS
    News reports that the gun control measures brought on by this terrible
    event are due to come into force in June.

    On other fronts, an advertising campaign to ban all handguns, including
    single shot .22, will start today.

    Membership of gun clubs has halved and gun shops have reported a 75%
    drop in sales.

    I suppose it is a bit like the Titanic disaster improved ship safety
    and Thalidomide caused much more stringent testing of drugs. We can
    learn from our mistakes.

    Jamie.
                    

There was an story on NPR this morning about how police have in the past
used their guns too quickly or without considering alternatives and this
resulted in injury and loss of life to bystanders, police, and criminals.

While some here may applaud this result for criminals, I think the other
two groups involvement might have a chance of universal distain.

When police were counciled (they used Philladelphia as an example) gun
related [and overall] problems dropped by over half. 

The story pointed out that the police officer's best weapon in most situations
was dialogue, or talking with the believed criminal.

The conclusion I drew was that police were more effective with less gun usage.

Given that some here have expressed a "shoot first without warning" attitude
toward home defence, I would hope that the police, highly weapons trained
personnel, experience might present alternatives worth consideration.

	-Stephanie

    Stephanie,
    
    You can protect yourself and your loved ones the way you want, thank
    you, and I will protect mine my way.  Police officers deal with people
    who may not even be violent.  A person entering my home uninvited and
    unnounced at night when it is obviously occupied is IMO not just coming
    in to get out of the dark or borrow a cup of sugar.  
    
    meg

    Well the first anniversary of the Dunblane Massacre got well
    celebrated. Another lunatic with a gun shot 7 school girls dead and
    wounded a further 8. However as he had the gun legally there is nothing
    that can be done about it, just one of those unfortunate incidents that
    the NRA gloss over.

    Meanwhile in Albania the NRA's perennial bogieman "if the populace don't
    have their own guns the government can do what it likes" is being
    proved to be a lie. The Albanian peasants were not allowed weapons, so
    they simply broke into the army arsenals and helped themselves.

    Mind you this did allow anyone who was big enough to carry a gun to be
    armed. I thought the news camera man was very brave to film a
    prepubertal youth who was waving an automatic weapon in his direction.

    Jamie.

    Jamie,
    
    I can't help that Jordinians, and in many cases other countries, fail
    to screen psychotics out of thei military institutions.  This is not
    something the NRA glosses over, in fact if this happened here, the
    other soldiers who overpowered the psychotic would  have been given an
    award.  We have our own mass murderer or children going on trial the
    end of this month, and he didn't use a gun, just some fertilizer and
    fuel oil or nitromethane and a truck.  
    
    so in Albania the populace is up in arms and has found a way to get
    their own.  Goes to show if you make someones life miserable enough
    they will eventually find a way to revolt.  Good thing they couldn't
    get their hands of a tuck, fertilizer and diesle fuel.  
    
    Meg, gun owner for many years with no notches on them other than
    targets and food.  

    >Well the first anniversary of the Dunblane Massacre got well
    >celebrated. Another lunatic with a gun shot 7 school girls dead and
    >wounded a further 8. However as he had the gun legally there is nothing
    >that can be done about it, just one of those unfortunate incidents that
    >the NRA gloss over.
    
    Speaking of "glossing over," I notice that our favorite advocate of
    "only the police and military should be allowed to have guns" has
    glossed over the fact that the lunatic in question was not a private
    citizen but a member of the military who was supposed to be guarding
    his victims. No, this isn't merely a case of glossing over the
    pertinent facts, this is a case where an anti-gun zealot hides the true
    facts and misrepresents reality in his fervent attempts to demonize the
    NRA. These are morally and ethically bankrupt tactics. In simple terms,
    Jamie's misrepresentations are fraudulent. One wonders if he is as
    certain about the correctness of his approach as he purports why he
    must resort to lying to make his points. Why can't you tell "the truth,
    the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" Jamie? What are you afraid
    of?
    

    >Speaking of "glossing over," I notice that our favorite advocate of
    >"only the police and military should be allowed to have guns" has
    
    I'm not in favour of the police having guns. Whatever gave you that
    idea?
    
    Jamie.

    So would that be only the military should have guns, or nobody should
    have guns?

    >So would that be only the military should have guns, or nobody should
    >have guns?
    
    I think the gun control law that is being passed in the UK would be
    about the correct level, provided they took out the single shot
    handguns.

    It would not totally solve the problem, but even the existing laws, as
    we have seen, did stop one potential massacre. I think that the UK
    armed forces are more stringent in their recruiting than the Jordanian
    ones, so the military could keep their guns.

    The police in the UK are not normally armed but guns are available when
    they are needed. It seems to work and the incidence of the police
    shooting someone is very low.

    Jamie.

    One might also note that Jamie has neglected to tell much of the story
    in Albania, too, where peasants have armed themselves from government
    armories only after order has totally broken down.  Americans have been
    under evacuation from Albania for four days, the place has been rioting
    for nearly three weeks, and while adding government arms to the mixture
    is certainly not the best news, one can certainly sympathize with the
    powerless citizens who were already at huge risk from the disorder and
    chose to arm themselves for their own protection.  Looting it is- but
    would Jamie have preferred the government massacre the peasants?
    
    DougO

    The point that I was trying to make was this.

    The NRA has got a message going round that Americans must have guns so
    that the government (AKA Jackbooted Storm troopers) cannot strip away
    all their rights.

    Albania blew a rather large hole in this as the peasants were not
    allowed to arm themselves. But when they needed arms it was a
    relatively simple thing to get them.

    Jamie.

     <<< Note 591.818 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>Given that some here have expressed a "shoot first without warning" attitude
>toward home defence, I would hope that the police, highly weapons trained
>personnel, experience might present alternatives worth consideration.

	"Highly weapons trained personnel"?? A little reality check. Most
	cops are actually not very good shots. They do not practice regularly,
	and many only need to qualify on an annual basis. The "average" cop
	will fire less than 500 rounds per year.

	By comparison, when getting ready for a competition, I will fire
	500 rounds per WEEK.

	Recent stories regarding officer involved shootings.

	The last shooting in Colorado Springs. Officer fired 3 rounds from
	a distance of 15 feet. One round hit the subject, the other two
	missed. One of those rounds paased through the wall of a house,
	missing the occupant by less than 5 feet.

	The last shooting In Manitou Springs (an adjacent town) had an
	officer fire 8 rounds at a subject who was in the back seat of
	the officer's cruiser. Again, only 1 round hit the subject, the
	other 7 missed.

	Of course, the most recent widely repoprted story comes from
	LA, where 300 officers were unable to bring down 2 subjects
	while firing several THOUSAND rounds. Even though the subjects
	were wearing body armour, most of the rounds fired by the police
	missed the target completely.

	If you ever are unfortunate enough to see a police officer pull
	his gun, hit the deck. He is as likely to shoot you as he is to
	actually hit the person that he is aiming at.

Jim

    <<< Note 591.820 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "All that sheep tupping worked!" >>>

>Another lunatic with a gun shot 7 school girls dead and
>    wounded a further 8. However as he had the gun legally there is nothing
>    that can be done about it, just one of those unfortunate incidents that
>    the NRA gloss over.

	Another error of omission, Jamie?

	The lunatic was a soldier in the Jordanian Army. As a rule, most
	armies issue guns to their soldiers. But I'm sure that your
	solution will be to disarm all of her Majesty's military forces
	so that such a tragedy can not be repeated in the UK.


Jim

    Other fact checking.  The Soldier was a driver, and not armed.  He
    snatched the gun from a fellow sodier.  The family says he is seriously
    depressed, and possibly tranquilized, rather than being treated with
    appropriate anti-depressents.  
    
    meg

In reply to my note 591.818

>>Given that some here have expressed a "shoot first without warning" attitude
>>toward home defence, I would hope that the police, highly weapons trained
>>personnel, experience might present alternatives worth consideration.
>	"Highly weapons trained personnel"?? A little reality check. Most
>	cops are actually not very good shots.

First, if the police are so poorly trained, as you clearly imply, then
how can the general gun-toting populace be expected to be any better 
trained? What percentage of the guntoting populace pumps out that 500
rounds a year that you put up a a benchmark? 

Is, as I read your note to imply, your sole measure of training the 
quality of their aim? Really! Don't you think gun safety, when to use
a weapon, how to avoid a weapons exchange [as opposed to terminating
a suspect] might be important qualities with any gun owner?

>	If you ever are unfortunate enough to see a police officer pull
>	his gun, hit the deck. He is as likely to shoot you as he is to
>	actually hit the person that he is aiming at.

Second, if the police are such poor shots, can the average civilian
gun owner be expect to be any better? and if not, can guns really be
considered a good defence for most owners? Wouldn't such bad aim pose
a serious danger to most gun owners [assuming most gun owners are no 
better than the police in their aim in stressful and/or confrontational 
situations] families or other bystanders? Shouldn't such people who kill 
or injure bystanders be liable for their negligence?

While you may be an excellent aim, and an expert on proper gun handling,
I suspect that you are not the typical norm among gun owners.

	-Stephanie

    >>> Meanwhile in Albania the NRA's perennial bogieman "if the populace don't
    >>> have their own guns the government can do what it likes" is being
    >>> proved to be a lie. The Albanian peasants were not allowed weapons, so
    >>> they simply broke into the army arsenals and helped themselves.
    
    >> in Albania, too, where peasants have armed themselves from government
    armories only after order has totally broken down.  Americans have been
    under evacuation from Albania for four days, the place has been rioting
    for nearly three weeks, and while adding government arms to the mixture
    is certainly not the best news, one can certainly sympathize with the
    powerless citizens who were already at huge risk from the disorder and
    chose to arm themselves for their own protection.  Looting it is- but
    would Jamie have preferred the government massacre the peasants?
    
    >    The point that I was trying to make was this.
    >
    > The NRA has got a message going round that Americans must have guns so
    > that the government (AKA Jackbooted Storm troopers) cannot strip away
    > all their rights.
    >
    > Albania blew a rather large hole in this as the peasants were not
    > allowed to arm themselves. But when they needed arms it was a
    > relatively simple thing to get them.
    
    "proved to be a lie"?  "relatively simple"?
    
    Breaking into and looting a government armory sounds to me like the act
    of desparate people, under appalling conditions.  They could as easily
    have all been shot down.  And to what ends the situation in Albania
    will eventually reduce is as yet unknown- next door to Bosnia; next
    door to Kossovo, another remnant of ex-Yugoslavia, and one where the
    populace is 80% Albanian yet ruled by Serbs- all decidedly unstable.
    
    Given that these people could as easily have been killed by any nearby
    squad of soldiers, I don't see how you can say anything is proved or
    that it was 'relatively simple' that they succeeded in arming
    themselves.  It was happenstance.  It was in a culture far removed 
    from ours by centuries of balkan instability and decades of marxist
    ideologism.  It proves nothing.
    
    > But when they needed arms it was a relatively simple thing to get them.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    What I am amazed to see is that you actually acknowledged a time when
    ordinary people needed to arm themselves.  Too bad you can't take
    the extra step to see the value in preparing against such times before
    they are actually upon you, or others.
    
    DougO

    Stephanie,
    
    Citizens who work for competition, be it Skeet, trap, sporting clays,
    long rifle target, handgun target, ipsc(mumble, what Jim does) all
    practice their skills far more than the average Law Enforcement
    Officer.  In many jurisdictions those of us who shoot for 4 weeks prior
    to each hunting season in the evenings and on weekends actually put
    more lead through our firearms than the average LEO. 
    
    Because of the amount of practice and coaching many citizen shooters
    put in on their own time, they are much more accurate in many cases. 
    
    
    meg

     <<< Note 591.831 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>First, if the police are so poorly trained, as you clearly imply, then
>how can the general gun-toting populace be expected to be any better 
>trained? What percentage of the guntoting populace pumps out that 500
>rounds a year that you put up a a benchmark? 

	Many years ago, when I was a cop, I viewed my issue sidearm
	as a piece of equipment. Just like the cruiser, or the radio,
	or the baton. Qualification in those days was even more lenient
	than it is now. We fired once per year, 50 rounds total. 
	Qualification score was 70%. Now mind you 70% was measured
	not as 70% of the available score, but 70% hits on the target.
	They've tightened up the qualification criteria, but they
	have not been able to change the attitude of most cops.
	After all they don't "practice" talking on the radio, so 
	they don't practice to improve their shooting skills.

	Those folks that I know that have concealed carry permits
	(the gun-toting populace) tend to be far more serious about
	keeping their skills at a high level. For one thing, they
	are statistically more likely to be in a situation where
	the use of deadly force is justified than a cop (not too
	many crooks are dumb enough to mug a police officer). For 
	another, those that carry legally tend to be gun enthusiasts
	who actully enjoy practicing. 

>Is, as I read your note to imply, your sole measure of training the 
>quality of their aim? Really! Don't you think gun safety, when to use
>a weapon, how to avoid a weapons exchange [as opposed to terminating
>a suspect] might be important qualities with any gun owner?

	The cases mentioned were an indication of poor marksmanship.
	It also is an illustration of poor, inadequate training. I
	expect any person that is making a decision to use deadly 
	force to understand what is safe and what is not safe. I
	expect them to understand the legalities of using deadly 
	force. But the "spray and pray" method that these cops
	used is NOT acceptable, it is NOT safe, and it indicates a 
	complete disregard for the public at large.

>Second, if the police are such poor shots, can the average civilian
>gun owner be expect to be any better?

	From FBI and DOJ stats. Civilians legally kill about 3 times the
	number of criminals than do cops (roughly 900 for armed civilians
	to 300 for the police). Armed civilians are LESS likely to shoot
	the wrong person than cops (3% for armed civilians to 11% for
	police).

	It seems that armed citizens DO do better.

>While you may be an excellent aim, and an expert on proper gun handling,
>I suspect that you are not the typical norm among gun owners.

	I believe that I am quite typical among those who actually carry.

Jim

    Perhaps the previous few notes explain why I am against arming the
    police.

    Jamie.

    <<< Note 591.835 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "All that sheep tupping worked!" >>>

>    Perhaps the previous few notes explain why I am against arming the
>    police.

	Given that US police officers at least have the option of practicing
	with their issue sidearms, one wonder if the situation in the UK
	isn't even worse on those occasions when the UK cops are armed.

Jim

    >Given that US police officers at least have the option of practicing
    >with their issue sidearms, one wonder if the situation in the UK isn't
    >even worse on those occasions when the UK cops are armed.
     
    Well they are trained and they do practice. But you might want to
    compare figures about the number of people shot by the police in the
    USA and the UK. Your chances of being shot by a policeman in the UK are
    zero most years, I can only think of a handful of cases in my entire
    life, it tends to make big headlines.

    Jamie.   
    

    <<< Note 591.837 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "All that sheep tupping worked!" >>>

>    Well they are trained and they do practice. 

	US police are also trained, and they must meet a minimum standard
	(at least once per year). I'm sure the same applies to UK police.

	The question still remains, how well can they shoot (in a real
	combat situation).

>But you might want to
>    compare figures about the number of people shot by the police in the
>    USA and the UK. Your chances of being shot by a policeman in the UK are
>    zero most years


	Nice try, but irrelevant. All police officers in the US are armed
	when on duty. By your own admission, virtually all UK police officers
	are not. Without access to a sidearm, it would be VERY unusual for
	a UK cop to shoot someone.

Jim

    

    >Without access to a sidearm, it would be VERY unusual for a UK cop to
    >shoot someone.

    A decidedly reassuring point. Now project it to the general population.
    Soon they will also have no access to a sidearm.

    Jamie.

>	The question still remains, how well can they shoot (in a real
>	combat situation).

How much better can one expect the average gun owning citizen to be?

That was my argument. There are no requirements I'm aware of for traiing
and regular practice for civilian gun owners. 

If the people who professionally carry guns [US police, for example] are such
poor shots on the range then how good could one expect a typical gun owner to
be? In my experience, someone who shoots 500 rounds in a week and participates
in shooting matches is not "typical". How would these people be in a "real
combat situation" [where they may choose not to exersize other options, if
available]?

I would hope that there would be a lower number of police shootings. These 
are people who are supposed to be trained at descallating potentially
violent situations rather than sending them to the "flying hot lead" stage.
They are supposed to be *peace* officers as I understand it. 

I find the lower number of shootings by police also encouraging since they 
are routinely sent into dangerous and potentially dangerous situations that
could erupt into violence unless prudently handled. That the police have 
fewer killings tells me that they are doing a good job. That civilian killing
are higher, tells me that they may, generally, need training or may be 
feeling cocky with their "colt" [or other firearm] under their pillow or by
their side.

> Without access to a sidearm, it would be VERY unusual for a UK cop to
> shoot someone.

I agree. And since England is a place where I feel remarkably more safe than
most places in the United States I think they do an excellent job and make
a good argument for a, largely, unarmed police force. I wonder how many times
a US police person has been disarmed and shot with their own weapon as 
compared with the UK? This might say something about the dangers of an
firearmed police force... As might the relative numbers of police who get shot
[as an armed policeman may represent a threat that makes a potential (remember,
innocent until *proven* guilty!) criminal feel a firearm of their own is 
necessary to at least even the odds]...

What proportion of crime has firearms in the US as opposed to the UK? I think
this might be a revealing statistic... don't you??? Also to the effecacy of
gun laws over the longer term...

	-Stephanie

    <<< Note 591.839 by IJSAPL::ANDERSON "All that sheep tupping worked!" >>>

>    A decidedly reassuring point. Now project it to the general population.
>    Soon they will also have no access to a sidearm.

	There are no ILLEGAL guns in the UK???

	Amazing.

Jim

     <<< Note 591.840 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>

>How much better can one expect the average gun owning citizen to be?

	Again, based on government stats, "average" citizens are less
	likely (by about a factor of 3) to shoot the wrong person.

>I find the lower number of shootings by police also encouraging since they 
>are routinely sent into dangerous and potentially dangerous situations that
>could erupt into violence unless prudently handled. That the police have 
>fewer killings tells me that they are doing a good job. That civilian killing
>are higher, tells me that they may, generally, need training or may be 
>feeling cocky with their "colt" [or other firearm] under their pillow or by
>their side.

	Think about it critically for a moment. Cops are generally called
	AFTER a crime has taken place. In a minority of instances they
	may arrive while a crime is in progress. An armed victim is
	already on the scene of a crime in progress.

>I wonder how many times
>a US police person has been disarmed and shot with their own weapon

	About 60% of officer shot in the line of duty in the US are
	shot with their own guns. This is one reason why most self
	defense experts that teach police officers have stressed
	weapons retention training for the last few years.

>What proportion of crime has firearms in the US as opposed to the UK? I think
>this might be a revealing statistic... don't you??? Also to the effecacy of
>gun laws over the longer term...

	You haven't been following along, have you?

Jim

>	About 60% of officer shot in the line of duty in the US are
>	shot with their own guns. This is one reason why most self
>	defense experts that teach police officers have stressed
>	weapons retention training for the last few years.

And how many civilians who have and/or carry firearms have had 
"weapons retention training"? How would one expect that one who
is not, by basis of profession, often put into stressful and/or
dangerous situations [domestic violence or even stopping cars in
traffic violations comes to mind in light of a recent shooting in
the news] as is a police officer, likely to react in a [to quote 
your description] "real combat situation" without specific training
and experience?

How many shootings in a home occur with a weapon kept in the home?
How many times is the "victum" of a crime shot with their own weapon?

At least the US [and I presume UK] police are trained in the handling
of dangerous situations and firearms. At least police in the US must
[according to your description in a previous reply] required to got
through a *recurring* proficency test. I think that civilian gun 
owners are not required to do these things... is this uncorrect? 

If civilians are not required to do these things and the people who
use, in public, as part of their profession, firearms are sooooo poor
in their safety and proficency [as you have described] then why should
we think that the *typical* gun owner should be any better in the 
stressful and potentially panicked situation of being a "victum" to a
intrusion? I would expect the person who does not have a recurring 
training and proficency requirement to be worse.

	-Stephanie

    
>If civilians are not required to do these things and the people who
>use, in public, as part of their profession, firearms are sooooo poor
>in their safety and proficency [as you have described] then why should
>we think that the *typical* gun owner should be any better in the 
>stressful and potentially panicked situation of being a "victum" to a
>intrusion? I would expect the person who does not have a recurring 
>training and proficency requirement to be worse.

 A couple of thoughts about this.
    	1. Just because someone is not required to do something doesn't
    mean they don't do it. The gun owners that I know are very motivated to
    stay proficient at their use of firearms. That may be because its not
    just their job (police). 
    	2. I would extend my belief to MOST gun owners that they are very
    consciencious about training and safety.
    
    I myself have taken several courses and I fire many types of firearms
    regularly even though noone requires me to.
    I don't know how I would react to a stessful situation or a real
    gun-fight, but neither does a police officer until it happens. All the
    "Hogan's Alley" training doesn't mean squat if noone is firing back.
    
    
    And Jim has quoted the studies already that the average person IS more
    proficient than the police.
    
    ed

     <<< Note 591.843 by IAMNRA::SULLIVAN "IdreamedIsawJoeHilllastnight" >>>
                  -< RE: 591.842 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL >-

>And how many civilians who have and/or carry firearms have had 
>"weapons retention training"?

	Very few I would suspect. Of course the difference with a civilian
	carrying concealed and confronting a bad guy is that the bad guy
	doesn't know that the civilian is armed. This is quite different
	than the situation where a police officer shows up and the bad
	guy KNOWS that he is armed.

	BTW, When an officer loses his gun to the criminal, it is not
	becuase he is holding it. It is generally taken from his holster.

> How would one expect that one who
>is not, by basis of profession, often put into stressful and/or
>dangerous situations [domestic violence or even stopping cars in
>traffic violations comes to mind in light of a recent shooting in
>the news] as is a police officer, likely to react in a [to quote 
>your description] "real combat situation" without specific training
>and experience?

	One might not expect it, but the numbers show that such persons
	are more effective and less likely to injure a bystander than
	is a police officer.

>How many shootings in a home occur with a weapon kept in the home?

	I would imagine quite a few.

>How many times is the "victum" of a crime shot with their own weapon?

	Are you asking about weapons retention, or something else?

>At least the US [and I presume UK] police are trained in the handling
>of dangerous situations and firearms. At least police in the US must
>[according to your description in a previous reply] required to got
>through a *recurring* proficency test. I think that civilian gun 
>owners are not required to do these things... is this uncorrect? 

	Most concealed carry laws require some evidence of training.
	I know that my county Sheriff does. I also know that my IPSC
	classification card is considered evidence of such training.

>I would expect the person who does not have a recurring 
>training and proficency requirement to be worse.

	Again, you might expect this, but you would be wrong based on
	the available evidence.

Jim

>    And Jim has quoted the studies already that the average person IS more
>    proficient than the police.

By the above I presume you are refering to the following:

591.834 - GENRAL::BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
>	From FBI and DOJ stats. Civilians legally kill about 3 times the
>	number of criminals than do cops (roughly 900 for armed civilians
>	to 300 for the police). Armed civilians are LESS likely to shoot
>	the wrong person than cops (3% for armed civilians to 11% for
>	police).
>	It seems that armed citizens DO do better.

It does seem that civilian use of firearms to *kill* people presumed to be
criminals [innocent until proven guilty - isn't that they way it works in
this country?]. Are police goaled with *killing* *suspects*???? I think 
their goal is to *stop* them, isn't it? To use less than *deadly* force?

If the goal is to kill suspected criminals then I'd say the civilians
are more effective. If the goal is to bring criminals to justice, then
perhaps the stats refered to [are these on-line? where *are* they available?
please?] may tell a very different story.

The study sure tells me that civilians cited in the above tell me that 
when emboldened by a firearm in their possession they will be more bloody
and, perhaps, bloodthursty, than the police would. I think this is also
encouraged by the openness of the law around shooting people in your home
in colorado [and some other states?].

Jim has clearly stated that a person in his home, uninvited at night, would
be shot without warning and that he would be careful not to give them any
foreknowledge that he was there. 

Not even, draw a bead on the person, yell halt, then, only IF not obeyed,
shoot... no just shoot. He also indicated that options that could put 
property in question, but remove him and his family from the house and
situation would not be taken. 

He indicated he would initiate a firearms exchange. He has indicated that the
person need not be armed. I think with that perspective, Jim would likely 
move the kill rate on the civilian side higher with the opprotunity.

What I find appalling is the presumption that escape is unacceptable and 
unthinkable based up on our previous exchanged in this topic. While it 
may not be an option in some cases, I would think of it as preferable to
killing or shooting a person. It is my feeling that  killing should be a 
last resort rather than a first strategy.

I think of the television spot with Paul Newman reading a newspaper article
about a small boy who returns in the night from a friends home and hides to
surprise his father who then shoots him... I see this as a needless tragedy
that could have been averted.

	-Stephanie